Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND WATER SPORTS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Prepackaged Products (Standard Weights)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make further regulations with regard to the standard weight of products sold in packets or other containers.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Man Williams): Yes, Sir. It is the Government's policy to add to the list of products sold in prepackaged quantities whenever we are satisfied it should and can be done. We have further orders under the Weights and Measures Act in mind and hope to lay them in the near future.

Mr. Davidson: That is a helpful answer, but is my hon. Friend aware that the greatest confusion is caused by the packaging of biscuits and that this is the source of the greatest consumer pressure? Will he give the earliest priority to this?

Mr. Williams: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Biscuits and chocolate will be the subject of early orders, followed fairly quickly, I hope, by wines sold by carafe.

Mr. Cormack: What is the state of consultations on the unit pricing front?

Mr. Williams: That is a different question. There is another Question about this matter on the Order Paper today. The hon. Gentleman will have in mind that the legislation has not yet been passed, and we are still awaiting its completion.

Mr. Lipton: Will my hon. Friend do something about manufacturers who produce much larger cartons than are necessary? For example, could not cornflakes be encompassed within a much smaller package than is at present available?

Mr. Williams: The difficulty is that corn flakes quickly become corn powder if they are compressed into too small a package. My hon. Friend will know, however, that it is illegal to use misleading packaging, and if he has in mind instances of packaging grossly misleading to the consumer I shall be glad if he will bring them to my attention.

Cost of Living

Mrs. Reéne Short: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what further action she intends to take to try and reduce the rising cost of living.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what further action she proposes to take to try to reduce the rising cost of living.

The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley Williams): The measures which I have taken since coming into office, including tightening the Price Code, have reduced the rise in the retail price index by some 1½ per cent., and the retail food index by about 4 per cent. I am now considering further subsidies on basic foodstuffs, and when the Prices Bill is enacted I intend to impose maximum prices and retail margins on subsidised foods and to introduce unit pricing orders covering fresh meat, fish and vegetables.

Mrs. Short: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am anxious that she should not repeat the disastrous experience of the previous Government. Is she aware that the family expenditure survey for 1973 indicates that food takes about 25 per cent. of the expenditure on goods and services of the average family


and that in 1973 expenditure on goods and services by the average family rose to nearly £40 a week, a rise of nearly a week over 1972 for the average family? Is it not urgent that we do not repeat that disastrous experience?

Mrs. Williams: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. We have endeavoured to concentrate Government action on food prices, and I am glad to say that the increase in food prices has slowed down considerably since the present Government came to office.

Mr. Gorst: Does the right hon. Lady realise that she has been waving a ludicrously expensive and ineffectual wand and that the rate of inflation, according to her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, is now running at 23 per cent. per annum—

Mrs. Williams: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gorst: The right hon. Lady waves her head as well as her wand. That information was given in a Written Answer to me on 26th June. Will the right hon. Lady, recognising that the measures she has taken are ineffectual, now come to terms with the fact that it is the lower-paid members of the community who require assistance and that a general hand-out to everyone is not wanted?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman should not base his assessment of inflation on one month's figures, which is what he has done in referring to that answer.

Mr. Gorst: Three months.

Mrs. Williams: What the hon. Gentleman has said is not borne out by any figure that I have seen, and I may add that he is not helping the country by giving credence to that sort of alarmist statement. The Government have taken steps through food subsidies, which the hon. Gentleman's party opposes, through the voluntary agreement and in other ways to give special help to the lowest paid, and they are to increase pensions by the largest historic proportion ever next month.

Mr. Huckfield: Will my right hon. Friend take it that most of us on this side have found in our constituencies that there is wide acceptance, agreement and support for what she is doing, but will

she accept that we are awaiting more particularly a definitive statement on how she intends to use her powers under the Prices Bill to fix maximum prices? Also, will she say something about how she intends to use her powers to prescribe the fixing of lists of fair prices in shops?

Mrs. Williams: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the passage of the Prices Bill—which has not yet received Royal Assent—for most of the answer to that. I have already said that we intend to take early action as soon as that measure is passed to control retail price margins, to set maximum prices which will be displayed in the shops, in the first instance for subsidised products, and to introduce unit pricing for fresh food.

Mr. Channon: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that inflation at the moment is running at a terrifying rate? None of us wishes to be alarmist but the facts still are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) has said, that if the figures in the last quarter were to be repeated throughout the year the rate of inflation would be 23 per cent. It is running faster than at any time in our history, and since the right hon. Lady took office we have seen a great—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even for the Front Bench, this is Question Time.

Mr. Channon: What does the right hon. Lady propose to do about it?

Mrs. Williams: The right hon. Lady would be quite glad if she occasionally got a little support from the Opposition for the things she tries to do. The great difference between the Government and their predecessor is that we at least try to do something about those things that we can do something about and do not sit back wringing our hands and attribute the whole thing to world prices.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement on the recent increase in the cost of living index.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: As I said on television on 21st June when the retail price index for May was published, the main factors in the increase of 1·4 per cent. were seasonal changes in the price of vegetables and higher excise duties on tobacco and alcohol.

Mr. Steel: While that is no doubt true, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she is aware that the recent quarterly report from regional surveys showed that working-class families in Scotland were the hardest hit of all by the new price increases under phase 3? Is she aware that the report found that the biggest differences between Scotland and the rest of the country were in housing and transport? Since neither of these matters falls directly under her responsibility, will she co-ordinate with her ministerial colleagues to see what can be done about this, particularly as another round of bus fare increases is being proposed by the Scottish Transport Group?

Mrs. Williams: I accept that there are particular difficulties in Scotland and other parts of the country which are remote from urban areas. We are looking at the possibility of constructing regional price indices in my Department.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is the right hon. Lady aware that although she protests that she is doing a great deal about inflation we might be more ready to support what she is doing if there were any evidence that it was being effective? As the rate of inflation is increasing far faster than it did under the last Government, does she appreciate that we see no evidence of her policy being effective?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Lady must be aware that there have been substantial increases in oil and raw material prices and that there has also been the three-day working week. The great difference between the period of office of the last Government and that of this Government is that we have taken direct action in respect of basic foods with the result that the food index has dropped each month in terms of the rate of increase compared with the figures for the last administration.

Service Contracts (Exclusion Clauses)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether the Director General of Fair Trading has recommended changes in the law relating to exclusion clauses in contracts of service.

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when she expects to receive the Law

Commissioners' report on exclusion clauses in service contracts.

Mr. Alan Williams: I understand that the Director General accepts, as I do, that any wide-ranging change in the law in this area must await the proposals of the Law Commissions. We are pressing them for the earliest possible report.

Mr. Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer is not satisfactory because many of us have been pressing for action on these disgraceful and fraudulent clauses for several years without result? Does he agree that there is no need for any further delay in dealing, for example, with exclusion clauses in the scandalous contracts which are foisted on the public by car parks and similar organisations?

Mr. Williams: I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend is disappointed with that answer. It is exactly the same answer as I gave him a short while ago—

Mr. Cormack: That is why he is disappointed.

Mr. Williams: —when I said that the Law Commissions were due to report later this year and that on the basis of their report we would take the earliest possible action. I said that we should have to hold consultations on any alternative action envisaged in the meantime. By the time those consultations were completed the report would be available. It would obviously have been an absurdity to have two sets of consultations running in parallel.

Miss Fookes: In view of the general dissatisfaction with some of these exclusion clauses, may I ask the hon. Gentleman when he expects the Law Commissions to report? "Later this year" could be almost any time. May we expect the same kind of energy from the hon. Gentleman in office as we had from him when he was in opposition?

Mr. Williams: I am afraid that my energy is rapidly being drained by the Committee stage of the Consumer Credit Bill. I assure the hon. Lady that whatever energy I have left is very much devoted to this issue. The way in which many operators quite unjustifiably exclude the normal legal protection to which the public are entitled is a scandal. What I want and what I suspect the House wants is that at the end of the day


we should have a comprehensive approach to this matter which will ensure consistency over the whole service area.

Price Code

Mr. Norman Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what representations she has had from the CBI concerning the operation of the Price Code.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Since taking office I have had a continuous exchange of views with the CBI and other organisations on the developments in prices policy and the operation of the Price Code.

Mr. Fowler: In any future talks may I ask the right hon. Lady to remember the vital importance of maintaining investment in British industry? Would she not agree that this is vital for our future economic prosperity, including the prospect of employment?

Mrs. Williams: I accept that investment is a legitimate target for the whole community, including the private sector. I shall be making an announcement later this week about the Price Code review.

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when she proposes to start her consultations upon the new Price Code.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I hope to make an announcement after the enactment of the Prices Bill about the arrangements for the review of the Price Code.

Mr. Channon: Will the right hon. Lady tell us roughly what will be the time scale of her consultations and, assuming that there has not been a General Election by that time, when she proposes to come forward with new measures to replace the present Price Code?

Mrs. Williams: I appreciate that there is urgency in this matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that as soon as the Prices Bill becomes law I shall make an immediate announcement to the House giving full details. I hope that that may be later this week, subject to the will of the other place.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the right hon. Lady give us an assurance that in her

new Price Code, if we have to have such a thing, there will be no provision for profit-margin controls on home sales? If she persists with profit-margin controls on home sales she must realise that the burden on the balance of trade resulting from goods being directed for sale abroad which are needed at home will be intolerable.

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is showing some impatience. He has a Question on the Order Paper about this matter.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement about the progress of her review of the Price Code, with particular reference to the contribution made by the code to the balance of payments deficit.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am shortly making an announcement about the Price Code review. If the hon. Member or any other person has factual evidence that domestic price controls are having an adverse effect on the balance of payments, I shall be glad to consider it. At present I have no such evidence.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: May I suggest to the right hon. Lady that, if she ignores the evidence accumulating before her eyes for very much longer, she will find that the Price Commission has imposed an intolerable burden on a trade deficit which the country cannot sustain? To take one further example, will she look at the situation of trade in wrought nickel, to which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) drew attention the other day?

Mrs. Williams: I am prepared to look at any authentic evidence that the balance of payments is being affected by the Price Code. But, since price controls were introduced, exports have increased by 45 per cent. in value and 16 per cent. in volume. If things went on improving like that we should soon be out of our balance of payments difficulties.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her policies of price control make a direct contribution to industrial peace and that the frustrated housewife who has seen prices rising now sees that they are not rising quite so rapidly? Is


she aware, further, that this is a measure which is supported by the TUC, the CBI and everyone else who wants to see Britain out of the threat of inflation—except some elements of the Conservative Party?

Mrs. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I might add that there is substantial evidence to show that making higher profits in the export market than in the home market is very much in the national interest.

Mr. Biffen: In the review of the Price Code which is referred to in this Question, has the right hon. Lady met the widespread representations which I believe exist in industry that the present threshold payments are causing considerable erosion of profit margins and the potential for future investment by virtue of the diminishing ability of industry to absorb 50 per cent. of such wage increases in a productivity arrangement? Is she sympathetic to that view?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed the CBI and the TUC that, for the time being, the 50 per cent. productivity deduction introduced by the previous administration must continue but that this does not prejudice whatever decisions may be reached in the price review.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the downright ignorant nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the acknowledged form of words.

Retail Food (Promotional Offers)

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many, and which, of the commodities announced to be on permanent promotion under the voluntary agreement with food retailers have been on offer during the past few months.

The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): Neither the Government nor

the trade keeps a central record of promotional offers but it is probable that, along with other less essential items, they have all been on temporary offer at various times.

Mr. Silvester: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of advertisements put out by certain retailers purporting to suggest that the offers being made are as a result of Government policies when those offers have been on more or less permanent display as part of the retailer's previous advertising over a long period of time? As I am sure he would not wish to mislead the housewife, may I ask him to take early action about this?

Mr. Maclennan: It appears to me that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I am misleading the housewife but rather that the Retail Consortium is doing so. If that is what he is suggesting we will look at it carefully. I must rebut the suggestion, however. The evidence is quite the other way.

Retail Food (Voluntary Agreement)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection to what extent she has received evidence that her voluntary code is being observed by the retail food trade.

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will make a statement on the working of the voluntary agreement, announced by her on 12th June, for retailers to make available a low-budget shopping basket of basic foodstuffs and other goods.

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what evidence she has that her voluntary code is being observed by the retail trade.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: A number of the larger multiples, co-operative societies and voluntary groups have already announced the extension of existing offers or the introduction of new ones on items covered by the voluntary agreement. It will naturally take a little time before the full effects of the agreement are seen.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, according to the latest figures available, 98·9 per cent. of retail


food shops are not subject to the Price Code amendment and that of the remaining 1·1 per cent. only about one in 10 is operating her voluntary code? Since, therefore, only ·01 per cent. of all retail food shops are operating her code, would she agree that the claims she made about the significance of this measure were exaggerated and would be better described as "Shirley's box of tricks"?

Mrs. Williams: I am absolutely astonished by what the hon. Lady has said because it is totally untrue. The Retail Consortium purports to represent 85 per cent. of the retail trade. It has informed me that the agreement applies to all its members. If the hon. Lady really supposes that 85 per cent. of the trade is done by 1·1 per cent. of the shops, she is under an amazing illusion. In addition, she is in effect repudiating the efforts of her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) when he sought an agreement on exactly the same lines as I have managed to get.

Mr. Moonman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many dispassionate people, not only in this House, who believe that she is doing a first-class job and is fulfilling the promises made by Labour during the last election? Can she advise the House when the lists are to be published indicating the goods which will be subject to voluntary agreement?

Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for his initial comments. I sometimes have the impression that the Opposition cannot decide whether they want anything to be done about anything or whether they would prefer action to fail. We are moving as rapidly as we can on this. I have the assurance of the Retail Consortium with regard to the voluntary agreement that it will seek to introduce as rapidly as possible the labelling of all goods subject to voluntary agreement so that household shoppers may know exactly what they are getting and that margins are being held down on these goods.

Mr. Neubert: Does not the fact that the vast majority of these items have been on offer at promotional prices for a long period of time—so that the scheme will not have any effect on retail prices—indicate the sheer futility of such a move

in attempting to achieve cost-of-living reductions? Would it not be more open to acknowledge that this scheme is nothing more than a one-day wonder?

Mrs. Williams: First, about 60 per cent. of the trade as distinct from the number of shops is affected by the 10 per cent. cut, and the purpose of the voluntary agreement was to concentrate those cuts which had to be made because of the amendment to the Price Code on the most essential goods.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will realise, if he looks up my statement to the House on 12th June, that I did not claim that the voluntary agreement would affect the retail price index. I merely indicated that it would assist the least-well-off to buy essential goods at the lowest possible mark-ups.
Thirdly, I say once again that it is important that voluntary agreements which are believed by the trade to be effective should be supported not least by those hon. Members who are most loud in their condemnation of statutory controls.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend realise that when there are announcements such as that which was made over the weekend about the reduction of prices in the London metal market it must follow that her endeavours to lower prices. because they are combating inflation in the interests of the British people, will cause great anger among Conservative Members, and that the more anger we get from them the more successful her policies are?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend's remarks need no comment from me.

Mr. Channon: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that at a time when commodity prices are falling it is all the more disappointing that there should have been record price increases in the last couple of months?

Mrs. Williams: First, the increase in the food index last month was the lowest for several months. Secondly, I have the word of the Chairman of the Retail Consortium that in his view the voluntary agreement is working, but we are both agreed that it should be more widely publicised than has been possible in the short period of three weeks.

Bread Subsidy

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what review she has recently made of the operation of the bread subsidy; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Maclennan: We are keeping the operation of the bread subsidy under continuous review.

Mr. Blaker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I wrote to the Secretary of State on 30th May enclosing a letter from my constituent Mr. Parker-Brown, writing on behalf of 30 owners of grocery businesses in the area, in which he expressed the view that the subsidy was being used by the bakers to offer to large retailers very large discounts which they were denying to smaller retailers? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that this view is widely shared? When may I expect a reply to my letter?

Mr. Maclennan: I have seen the correspondence which the hon. Member has had with the Director General of Fair Trading. But I cannot accept—I have made this clear before—that the level of discount allowed has been influenced by the existence of the subsidy. The practice of discounting is not new. The rate of the subsidy was determined following the Price Commission's examination of the price notifications by the major plant bakers and reflected the amount that the industry would otherwise have been able to recover from the market.

Food Prices (EEC Membership Effects)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what proportion of the increase in the United Kingdom retail price index for food since January 1973 is attributable to membership of the EEC.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what proportion of the increase in the United Kingdom retail price index for food since January 1973 is attributable to British membership of the EEC.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The increase in the United Kingdom retail price index for food attributable to our membership

of the EEC is currently estimated to be between ½ and 1 per cent. But the House will realise that the further we move from the date of entry the more difficult it becomes to assess what prices might have been had we stayed outside the EEC.

Mr. Redmond: I accept what the Secretary of State says, but does she not agree that there is a terrible misconception about food prices in the Common Market? Would she not be serving the country well by letting the true facts be known about what is happening? Does she agree that if we were to leave the EEC it would be bound to lead to increases in food prices far greater than those we have had? Will she recall her words of a few minutes ago when she said that someone was not helping the country by giving credence to false figures?

Mrs. Williams: The price of grain and sugar is lower at EEC levels than at world price levels, but the price of dairy products is higher at EEC levels than at world price levels. It is impossible for us at this stage to judge the future movement of world prices and, while it is true that the common agricultural policy has not had the effect on food prices which it was believed in some quarters it would have, renegotiation of the CAP to stop it acting as a ratchet mechanism against the fall in prices is a very important national objective.

Mr. Lee: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we do not want guidelines from the Common Market to stop us reducing our prices? It is important that we should disregard the CAP wherever it is damaging to our economy, as undoubtedly it is on many matters.

Mrs. Williams: I accept that where the CAP acts against a fall in market prices it is important to renegotiate it, and beef is an example of how these things can go wrong.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Lady aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) proposed last November some radical changes in the CAP which would have had the effect to which she has just referred and that at about the same time the Commission published a substantial document for the same purpose?

Mrs. Williams: The Commission's document, which I believe had the support of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and, for that matter, of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, indicated that the most efficient farms should be the basis of CAP prices. I think that, regardless of party, we would all endorse that objective since it would be not only in the British national interest but in the long-term interests of the efficiency of agriculture throughout Europe.

Mr. John Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the average amount spent on food in Common Market countries is considerably higher than it is in this country and, therefore, that harmonisation with the EEC must have a deleterious effect on wage earners in this country?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend is right in the sense that the price levels for food in Britain are well below those which were common in Europe before we entered the Common Market. The problem which none of us can estimate accurately is how far the situation would change back to what it was when we joined. That is a matter for argument which I do not wish to enter into now.

Rationing

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what contingency plans for rationing she has.

Mr. Maclennan: None, Sir.

Mr. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the estimates of the future supplies of milk and butter are predictably well down? Does he agree that if price controls force down production the only result can be the Socialist Utopia, namely, rationing?

Mr. Maclennan: It is known that milk supplies from our farms during the rest of this year are likely to be somewhat less than they were last year, but there is no indication that we are heading for an overall shortage. We are dependent on imports for about 80 per cent. of our butter supplies, and although home production and New Zealand supplies are likely to be reduced this year imports from Community countries are available and supplies are expected to be adequate.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition showed great expertise in rationing—rationing by the purse—when they were in office and that they have driven fresh meat, butter and a great many other essentials off the table of many poor families? Will he make clear that we shall ensure that the same thing does not happen under the present Government and that if there is any failure in the voluntary agreement the Secretary of State will use her powers under the Act to control prices?

Mr. Maclennan: It was with those considerations in mind that my right hon. Friend introduced subsidies on the more important items in the food basket of the less-well-off sections of the community. The Opposition are not helping the situation by crying "Wolf, wolf".

Inflation

Mr. Gorst: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what underlying rate of inflation her arrangements to stabilise prices are calculated to withstand.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Government inherited an unacceptable rate of inflation. The measures I am taking are designed to moderate it. I have never claimed more than this.

Mr. Gorst: Will the right hon. Lady say whether her Department is making additional contingency plans to deal with the rate of hyper-inflation which we now have, or does she intend to remain dormant like a political Sleeping Beauty awaiting the kiss of a General Election?

Mrs. Williams: I find the Opposition's attitude extraordinary. When I do anything, they say that it is either false, misleading or humbug. When I do nothing, they say that I am sleeping, like a version of the Sleeping Beauty. The hon. Gentleman had better make up his mind whether he wants me to take action or whether he does not. The Government's view is that we should take action wherever we can. I have already described to the House the actions we propose to take when the Prices Bill becomes law, something which would have happened rather quicker if we had had the full co-operation of the Opposition.

Mr. Ridsdale: In view of the fall in commodity prices, would not the right


hon. Lady be better able to help widows and pensioners if she pressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer for tax reductions and better able to help people on small incomes if she pressed the Secretary of State for the Environment to make the water rate rebatable?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has certainly kept me busy with requests to my colleagues. I suggest that he might like to put the questions direct to them.

Mr. Channon: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Opposition in no way obstructed the passage of the Prices Bill? We came to an agreement with the right hon. Lady and we stuck to it. The date was met on every occasion. It is unfair and misleading for her to suggest that the Opposition delayed the passage of the Bill. We ask her to do something about prices which are rising now at a far faster rate than when she came into office.

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is aware that there are considerable distinctions between the ways in which prices are rising and that there are factors such as the impact of oil prices on the cost of travel and transport which it is difficult to control. The hon. Gentleman's Conservative Government left an extremely dangerous heritage, not least in respect of vast deficits in the nationalised industries which they said they would have had to look at had they stayed in government any longer.

Food Retailers (Discussions)

Mr. Giles Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what recent discussions she has held with representatives of food retailers.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I have recently held discussions with representatives of the food retailers on the voluntary agreement to hold the prices of essential goods.

Mr. Shaw: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply, but is she aware of the increasing pressure on the margins of food retailers? May I draw her attention to the article which was published on 3rd July in The Times which suggested that since the Government came into office the pressure on margins had been extremely severe? May I quote from the article—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The one thing the hon. Member may not do is to quote.

Mr. Shaw: May I, therefore, not quote but merely mention to the right hon. Lady that the margins on food retailing prices have fallen to 1·6 per cent.? What does she propose to do about it in view of the loss of confidence in investment in that sector?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) and the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) might get together and decide whether they want higher profits or lower prices. There are conflicts between the two. As I have made clear to the trade on more than one occasion, in a period of serious inflationary pressure—I have never doubted that that has been the position of the country for the last 18 months—and in a period when the net take-home pay of most of our people has actually fallen after tax, it is right and proper that retailers and the trade should themselves make a sacrifice in respect of lower margins.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is a great deal of appreciation of the fact that she has succeeded in obtaining the co-operation of the Retail Consortium? Will she reject utterly the claims being made by the Opposition that the consortium is not cooperating in the voluntary agreement?

Mrs. Williams: In thanking my hon. Friend, I say right away that the Retail Consortium knows that my view is that action will have to be taken under the Prices Bill when it becomes an Act if the voluntary agreement does not operate. I am satisfied that the consortium is doing its best to operate the agreement. In trying to suggest that it is not and that I cannot count on its word, the Opposition are doing nothing but bringing nearer the very statutory controls which they do not want.

Beer

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will request the Price Commission to institute an inquiry into the price of beer and the profits of the industry.

Mr. Maclennan: Increases in the price of beer are firmly controlled by the Price Code, and the Price Commission has intervened in several instances to ensure that it is strictly applied. There have, however, been very large increases in the cost of producing a pint of beer. Brewery profits have been related to greatly increased turnovers, not only of beer. Clause 3 of the Prices Bill does of course give the Government certain further powers exceptionally to control price increases.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the profits of the top seven brewers between 1969 and 1973 went up from £136 million to £275 million? As beer is an important part of the diet of my constituents, will my hon. Friend realise the importance of keeping the price down, the profits down and the strength up? Will he look again at the Monopolies Commission's report on beer and remedy some of the abuses indicated in that report?

Mr. Maclennan: Brewery profits need to be looked at carefully. They relate to other products as well as to beer and sometimes include operations abroad. The total turnover has increased considerably. The full impact of increased costs has been felt since the last complete year. Those increased costs include an increase in the price of malt and barley of about 80 per cent. The later interim results we have seen have tended to show lower profits as a percentage of turnover, reflecting the operation of the Price Code.

Mr. Ancram: Will the hon. Gentleman show as much concern for milk as he appears to show for beer? Despite what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), the consumption of milk is going up while production is going down.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the price of milk has come down.

Mr. Lipton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the original Question is one of some gravity, and will he do something to ensure that the drinking public know what the gravity is?

Mr. Maclennan: I know that this is a matter of some controversy, but quality must be a subjective assessment. Gravity

is an indication of strength and that is often taken to be synonymous with quality. The gravity of beer has not changed significantly over the past 20 years.

Unit Pricing

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection on what goods unit pricing will be required; and when it will be introduced.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The first goods which I have in mind for unit pricing are fresh meat, fish and certain vegetables. I anticipate that others will follow in due course. I am discussing the practical problems on this first list urgently with the trades affected and hope to be able to make the orders as soon as possible after the Prices Bill has become law.

Mr. Evans: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her success in the action she is taking, in which the previous administration failed? When my right hon. Friend frames the new orders, will she deal with the special problems which face small shopkeepers? If she is taking vegetables into account, will she also include fruit? In that way she may perhaps include the sour grapes of the Conservative Party.

Mrs. Williams: We are looking closely into the problems of small shopkeepers. We are concerned that many small shopkeepers are speciality traders, such as greengrocers and butchers, and to exclude them from the effects of unit pricing would be to undo some of the benefits of that scheme. We are specifically consulting organisations that represent small shopkeepers with a view to trying to minimise the trouble to them. We believe that unit pricing needs to be a universal system, and we shall look sympathetically at my hon. Friend's proposal with regard to fresh fruit.

Mr. Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady repudiate the rather partisan suggestions of her hon. Friend since this legislation was an all-party measure which was before the House under the Conservative Government? Has she yet decided whether marketing should be on the shelves or on the products?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman may remember that in his earlier incarnation his Bill was defeated by Tory objection, and he should recognise that a minority Labour Government have had the pleasure of getting it on to the statute book. We are discussing with the trade details of labelling, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman wishes me to anticipate the results of that consultation, which is genuine, because we want to take into account all the views and concerns expressed by people on this issue.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is the right hon. Lady aware that she is being less than honest if she does not mention that the Bill was twice defeated by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton)?

Mr. William Hamilton: That is not true.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Is the right hon. Lady also aware that her original reply was disappointing? With the new change to metrication on sugar, unit pricing will be important. Since her hon. Friend the Minister gave an undertaking on this subject, will the Secretary of State give the House reassurance on this topic?

Mr. Hamilton: I give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I shall raise a point of order at half-past three.

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Lady will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) strongly supported unit pricing in the name of the official Opposition during the last Parliament. That measure reached the statute book with all-party support. On the question of sugar she will be aware that there are orders concerning sugar, particularly the metrication of sugar, in another place. This must be considered alongside any move towards unit pricing.

Retail Price Index

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection by how much the retail price index has risen in the three months from March to May this year, inclusive; and what were the figures from July to September 1970, inclusive.

Mr. Alan Williams: During the three months ending in May the retail price index rose by 5·8 per cent. This compares with an increase of 0·4 per cent. in the three months from July to September 1970. It should be remembered, however, that the RPI is not seasonally adjusted. Seasonal food prices are an important factor in the calculation of the index. In the period February to May 1974 seasonal food prices rose by 9·5 per cent. whilst in the period June to September 1970 they fell by 13·7 per cent.

Mr. Adley: I thank the Minister for his answer, but I also note his excuses. The Labour Government have been busily proclaiming that they have taken action to deal with food prices, but they must accept responsibility for the appalling comparison between the first three months of the Labour Government and the first three months of the Conservative Government.

Mr. Williams: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman has the effrontery to put before the House a figure of price increase of 0·4 per cent. in the first three months of the Tory Government's existence, while overlooking the fact that when they left office they left Labour to deal with price increases of 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. This is a clear indication of deterioration and lack of economic understanding by the then Conservative Government.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. Friend publish the facts concerning the extent to which the three-day working week may have adversely affected the situation? Can he say whether the increase in oil prices had any effect on it?

Mr. Williams: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct. The three-day week was still in existence when we took office. Furthermore, we have had to contend with increases in oil prices, which contribute to inflation. Then there is the effect of value added tax, which was introduced by the Conservative Government, together with a 20 per cent. devaluation, which meant a reverse from a surplus of £1,000 million to a £1,400 million deficit.

Mr. Michael Latham: Can the Minister say whether the rate of inflation is getting better or worse?

Mr. Williams: If it gets better, it will be no thanks to the Conservative Party.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Do not the figures given in the answer suggest that a period of three months after six years of Labour Government is a much easier period to manage than a period of three months after four years of Tory Government?

Mr. Williams: It appears that the Opposition expect us by a stroke of the wand in three months to achieve something which the Tory Government failed to achieve at a stroke in three and a half years.

Mr. Dixon: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she can give an up-to-date estimate of the effect on the retail price index of Government measures announced in the last four months.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: During the three months to May the retail price index has risen by approximately three-fifths of 1 per cent. as a result of measures taken by the Government. This does not take account of the cut in distributors' permissible gross percentage margins, which did not come into effect until 6th May, and which I expect to reduce prices in the shops by about a further 1 per cent.

Mr. Dixon: Does the right hon. Lady realise how pleased Conservative Members are to be able to press her on so many matters in the face of the total inability of the Liberal Party to press her on the rise in prices to the housewife? Will the right hon. Lady say whether, in the coming three or four months, she expects this Government's policies to continue to fuel the inclination of prices to rise in the shops?

Mrs. Williams: I am sure that we are all impressed by the willingness of the Liberal Party not to see prices and consumer protection as a matter of importance, and I think that most hon. Members will regard Liberal Members as living in a happy, if an unrealistic, state in not being present for these Questions. As regards the other part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary—[Interruption.] I am pleased to see that one Liberal Member has made an appearance—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must restrain its transport of delight so that we may get more Questions answered.

Mrs. Williams: In the face of that excellently timed entrance, I trust that we shall be able to consider further at this Question Time the fuelling of additional prices.

Food Prices

Mr. Clemitson: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection by how much the food index rose compared to the previous year in January 1974 and in each month since then.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In the year ending January 1974 the food index rose by 20·1 per cent. The comparable figure for February was 19·1 per cent. The annual rate of increase has since fallen to 18·1 per cent. in March, 17·7 per cent. in April and 17·2 per cent. in May.

Mr. Clemitson: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the reason for this favourable trend in food prices? Could it have anything to do with the policies which the Labour Government have been pursuing, particularly in regard to food subsidies?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, it has everything to do with that because the effect of food subsidies on the food index, so much scorned by Conservative Members, amounts to four points on that index. In addition, it is estimated that a figure of between 2 and 3 per cent. will flow from the cut in subsidies and the concentration on food commodities.

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what was the rate of increase in the price of food in each of the last six months.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The percentage increase in the food index in each of the last six months—that is, beginning with December 1973—has been as follows. 1·7, 2·9, 0·9, 1·1, 1·2 and 1·3.

Mr. Marks: Do not these figures suggest that my right hon. Friend has done what the Conservative Government promised to do and has reduced the rise in food prices? Is she aware that despite the difficulties housewives will support her in doing something about food prices, whereas the Conservative Government not only did nothing to keep them down but aided and abetted in keeping them up?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) compared three months of Conservative Government with three months of Labour Government. A fairer comparison would have been the last three months of Conservative Government and the first three months of the present Government. The comparison shows that food prices increased by 5·7 per cent. in the last three months of Conservative Government and by 3·6 per cent. in the first three months of the Labour Government—less than two-thirds as much under Labour.

Mr. Channon: Has the right hon. Lady seen the Daily Mirror "Shopping Clock" and the Financial Times grocery price index, both of which last week showed for this month the biggest rises ever?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman cannot quarrel with these official figures, accepted by all parties. The Grocer figures cite individual sectors and brands and are no guide to the true overall effect of the food index which I have just given. If the hon. Gentleman is questioning the authenticity of the official figures which I have just given to the House, he should say so.

Diabetic Foods

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will now introduce subsidies to cover those foodstuffs essential for the diet of diabetics.

Mr. Maclennan: I am very sympathetic with diabetics who have to face many practical problems in their day-to-day lives. However, the special diets prescribed by the medical profession normally include some or all of the subsidised foods. Diabetics are therefore already benefiting from the Government's measures, and I do not think it would be appropriate to introduce new subsidies specifically to meet their requirements.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does not the Minister recognise that a diabetic is limited in choice and in his range of products and cannot shop around? Does he appreciate that last week the price of a 7-oz. pot of marmalade increased by a whole penny? If we are to protect this special group, does he not agree that it will be necessary to look again at this

question and not dismiss the problems of diabetics since they are a group of people who have had to bear the full brunt of inflation without any protection?

Mr. Maclennan: I am aware that diabetic preparations are more expensive than comparable foods made for general use. This is inevitable in a small, specialist market. I have drawn the Price Commission's attention to a number of specific complaints in this sector. I am advised that diabetics do not necessarily have to rely on products specially prepared for them but can have an ordinary though strictly regulated diet.

Consumer Advice Services

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what are her plans for establishing local centres to protect and inform customers.

Mr. Alan Williams: On 14th June my right hon. Friend had a useful discussion with the local authority associations about the development of consumer advice services. There are now about 35 local authority centres; on present plans 40 more will be open by March 1975 and a further 100 by the end of that year.

Mr. Roberts: In view of the financial difficulties facing some local authorities will my hon. Friend circulate to authorities details of mobile consumer units which operate successfully in some parts of the country and which could provide consumer advice over a large part of an authority's area?

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. This is one of many ideas being discussed between the Department and various authorities. I might add that the expenditure on advice centres is taken into account for rate support grant purposes.

Mr. Cormack: How is recruiting going among the League of Labour Women?

Mr. Williams: I imagine that it is doing very much better that it is among the Primrose League.

Mr. George Lawson: As well as protecting the customer in the shop in terms of prices, will my hon. Friend give protection to consumers generally? Will he bear in mind the case of an old couple


m my constituency who have been stripped of £600, being the cost of the fare to Australia, which they had to forfeit because unavoidably they were unable to go? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that shipping companies like Chandris Shipping Lines Limited require also to be put in a position where they cannot behave in this manner? Will he give this sort of protection as well?

Mr. Williams: On the general position of protection, the programme which my right hon. Friend has announced is much bigger than any programme considered by the previous administration. As for my hon. Friend's specific point, I congratulate him on his ingenuity on adding it as a supplementary question at this stage. However, if I attempted to answer it now I feel that I should attract Mr. Speaker's wrath since the same subject is down on the Order Paper as Question No. 35.

Motor Car Prices

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the underlying rate of increase in motor car prices.

Mr. Maclennan: In the six-month period from December 1973, increases in prices recommended by the principal United Kingdom car manufacturers for home sales ranged from 17·2 per cent. to 194 per cent.

Mr. Madel: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the rate and frequency of price increases for family cars continue, there may be great difficulty over domestic sales, with serious economic consequences for the industry? Will he seek an early meeting with the Society of Motor Manufacturers to discuss this matter further?

Mr. Maclennan: My Department is always willing to consider representations from manufacturers about the impact of Price Code provisions upon their industry.

Food Subsidies

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what further proposals she has for subsidising food.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: We have recently announced the Government's in

tention to subsidise household flour, and shall inform the House as soon as possible of any further detailed proposals

Mr. McNair-Wilson: In view of the rise in retail prices which, even if it is not as great as it might be, cannot give anyone reason to be complacent, does the right hon. Lady agree that there may be something to be said for applying subsidies to the cost of certain raw materials which producers use—rather on the lines of farmers and feeding stuffs—as a more cost-beneficial way of getting down the price of food?

Mrs. Williams: I do not rule out the importance of producer subsidies as well as consumer subsidies. My right hon Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has recently reintroduced the lime subsidy, sustained the pig meat subsidy and indicated certification procedures which are showing signs already of stabilising the beef market. I accept the spirit behind the hon. Gentleman's question—that the long-term pattern of prices, which is closely related to producer subsidies, is as important as the short-term, which is related to consumer subsidies.

Sea Voyage Cancellations (Fare Forfeiture)

Mr. George Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will seek powers to provide assistance to passengers of shipping companies who are being faced with forfeiture of fares because of unavoidable cancellation.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am consulting the Director General of Fair Trading under Section 2 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 on what action might be taken on the question of fares.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks that this would be of any assistance to the old couple in my constituency—Mr. and Mrs. McMillan—who have been deprived of £599·50, sacrificed at the behest of Chandris Shipping Lines Limited, whose chairman will not even speak with me on the telephone? Is not it disgraceful for any firm to behave in this way, more especially one which seems to be run by Greeks and which has most of its shares registered in Guernsey, thus avoiding tax in this country?

Mr. William Hamilton: They are Greek Tories.

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my attention. He will appreciate that I must now await a reply from the Director General.

Holidays

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what representations she has received about the rising cost of holidays in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Alan Williams: I have received no general representations. However, individual complaints about price increases are a matter for the Price Commission.

Mr. Luce: Does that not indicate how remote the Department is on these matters? As the cost of holiday-making is increasing at a rapid rate, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government could take a considerable amount of action to alleviate the situation? For example, petrol prices have increased by 65 per cent. in the last 12 months. Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reverse his Budget decision and, when he comes to the mini-Budget, to reduce the price of petrol to help holiday-makers?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the massive increase in the price of petrol was due to factors outside this and the previous Government's control. I am sure that he would not expect this Government to accept responsibility for changes in world oil prices. However, the hon. Gentleman is free to make whatever representations he wishes to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) indicated in a supplementary question on Question No. 18 that I had twice objected to the Unit Pricing Bill. That is untrue. Even if it were true the hon. Lady would not know, because she is never here on a Friday.

Mr. Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is true that it was not objections by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) which prevented the Unit Pricing Bill from reaching Committee. I should like that firmly on the record. Nevertheless, on a number of Fridays when I was here the hon. Gentleman indulged in certain delaying tactics. This will no doubt redress the balance.

Mr. Speaker: I think that after that exchange we should proceed to the Private Notice Question.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (PRIVATE PRACTICE)

Sir Geoffrey Howe: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will make a statement about the negotiations in which she took part last Friday in connection with the dispute about private practice in the National Health Service.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the statement, the relevant parts of which were agreed with all parties concerned in last Friday's discussions, which was circulated to the Press early on Saturday morning. I am also circulating copies of correspondence which has since passed between me and the Secretary of the British Medical Association confirming some of the points of principle which affect its members.
The esentials of the statement are these. The work of the working party on the consultants' contract is to be speeded up. The Government's declared policy of phasing private pay beds out of National Health Service hospitals remains a firm commitment, but, as I have made clear on several occasions, it is the Government's intention to proceed in an orderly way and after the fullest discussions with those most directly concerned.
The BMA and the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association have said that they do not agree with phasing out and hope to persuade the Government not to proceed.
I would remind the House that the joint working party is concerned not only with the future of private practice in NHS hospitals. This is only one part of


our discussions which are intended to result in a new charter for hospital consultants. The Government will consider the report of the working party and will base their detailed proposals on that.
Meanwhile, although I have a discretionary power to reduce or withdraw the authorisation of pay beds, I have no intention of making any arbitrary reduction in the present allocation of pay beds while awaiting the report of the working party.
So far as Charing Cross Hospital is concerned, it was agreed that, though the authorised number of pay beds would not be reduced, when private patients are treated for clinical reasons in special units elsewhere in the hospital, the equivalent number of beds in the private floor will be occupied by NHS patients. Thus, a mixed floor will result without in any way interfering with the clinical freedom of the consultant staff.
On this basis NUPE and COHSE agreed to issue a call to their members throughout the country to discontinue their action and to await the working party's report. For their part, the BMA and HCSA agreed to withdraw their threat of working to rule.
This settlement depends for its success on the good will of all parties. It is not, as has been suggested, a victory for any party: rather it is a victory for common sense. We all know that the service is faced with major difficulties in present financial circumstances. There is the added danger that conflicts between various groups will destroy it. We can maintain the National Health Service only if all are prepared to work together and accept that changes must take place on the responsibility of the Government of the day after proper consultation and negotiation.

Sir G. Howe: The whole House will welcome the last sentence of the right hon. Lady's reply together with her statement that it is not her intention to make any arbitrary reduction in the present allocation of pay beds.
Will she confirm that it follows from what she said that there will be no reduction in the number of beds available for private patients at the Charing Cross Hospital and that until the report of the working party under the chairmanship of

her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health has been considered and agreed it will remain the Government's policy to permit the provision of private beds in National Health Service hospitals on the present basis?
Does she accept that doing away with private beds can only serve to weaken the finances of the National Health Service at a time when she has acknowledged that the service is facing major difficulties in our present financial circumstances?
What estimate have the Government made of the loss in income to the National Health Service from doing away with private beds, of the cost of treating at public expense extra patients who would thus have to be treated, and of the cost of compensation, in whatever form, to consultants from any such change?
Finally, does she acknowledge that it is the view of the House that it is absolutely intolerable for a matter of this kind to be resolved by competing deployment of industrial strength and that it is wholly to be regretted if either side, in the light of her statement, seeks now to deploy a political case at the expense of innocent patients by means of anything resembling industrial action?

Mrs. Castle: I had hoped that in his opening remarks the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have welcomed the whole settlement. I think that it is an important step forward in a very tricky situation indeed. Most of the questions put to me by the right hon. and learned Gentleman have already been dealt with in my original answer to the House this afternoon. In that answer I made it clear that I shall not use my discretionary power, pending the publication of the working party's report, to reduce the number of pay beds. I cannot guarantee that no reduction will take place because, owing to shortage of staff, a number of hospitals are having to curtail various facilities. If that happens, pay beds must play their proper part. However, that is a matter for local discussion and decision, not for intervention by me.
I cannot accept that the phasing out of pay beds from National Health Service hospitals will weaken the service. On the contrary, those of us who believe in a service in which treatment is given on


medical priority alone believe that such a step will strengthen the purpose for which the National Health Service was originally created.
The loss of revenue due to the phasing out of pay beds this year is estimated to be £17 million. However, that means that we would have £17 million worth more facilities available to NHS patients.

Mr. English: Being slightly fractured, I suppose that, according to the rules—and as the House will observe my bandaged arm—I should declare an interest. My services were not those of the private patient, but of the NHS and the free service of a kindly professional medical Conservative Whip. That should suit both sides.
May I ask my right hon. Friend to refer to the working party the question of the serious discrepancies between different areas in the country? Since 1948 Nottingham has been the city worst served by the NHS. The discrepancy goes back before the National Health Service in this and other respects. Will my right hon. Friend take care to ensure that an equal service is provided throughout the whole country? I hope that she will refer that specific point to the working party.

Mrs. Castle: This is a point which may come up in the discussions. As my hon. Friend knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is chairman of that working party, and he has been here listening to and noting what has been said.

Mrs. Knight: May I ask the right hon. Lady what criteria she intends to use in future for the allocation of single rooms for patients? If single rooms are not to be allocated to people who will pay for them, can the right hon. Lady say that they will not be allocated to powerful political figures who use their weight to obtain them?

Mrs. Castle: At present, the allocation of single rooms to patients is done by the consultant on clinical grounds, and that freedom is something that we must preserve. I remind the House and the hon. Lady that there is such a provision as amenity beds for those who wish to have privacy, and it is our intention to extend this provision.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on her decision not to resile from the phasing out of pay beds? Will she also accept that when she is deliberating on whatever report comes from the working party she should ensure that the National Health Service is not dominated by the great white chiefs of the scalpel and the syringe but is used for the benefit of patients and that the provision of beds is dependent upon the need for treatment when it is necessary and not on the ability to pay?

Mrs. Castle: It would be my intention to stress the value to the National Health Service of all who work in it—and this is a point that emerged in the consciousness of all who argued during those long hours of last Friday. We must respect the part played by everyone. I repeat that the purpose of the working party is to examine the present consultant contract—and the arrangements for private practice are inextricably involved in this—with a view to giving hospital consultants the charter to which they are entitled.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Private Members' time and I think that we have encroached upon it sufficiently. I had my doubts whether to allow this Question. These matters must be debated on some other occasion.

Following is the information:

STATEMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES ON 6TH JULY 1974 ABOUT THE DISPUTE ABOUT PAY BEDS IN NHS HOSPITALS.

I have made the Government's position on this dispute over private beds in NHS hospitals clear both in statements in the House and in my letter of 4th July to the Chairman of the Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow Area Health Authority—a copy of which has been made public. The following are the relevant extracts:—
In all these discussions the concern of the AHA has been, and will be, to safeguard the interests of the patients as a whole. As the House is aware, it is the policy of the Government as set out in our Manifesto and reiterated since to phase out private practice from the hospital service. While therefore I can understand the feelings of the staff I cannot condone the action they are taking. We believe that this issue must be dealt with by the Government of the day, and in an orderly way.
In the past in industrial disputes in the hospital service it has always been recognised by all concerned that whatever the difference of view the health of patients


must not suffer. My responsibility is to do everything in my power to ensure that ill patients whether private or NHS do not become the innocent victims of any action taken in any industrial disputes. I have already in the House of Commons made clear the Government's position on its policy as to private practice in the hospital service. I cannot stress strongly enough that all concerned should leave this to the Government to pursue in an orderly way through normal negotiating procedure. I have already said that I do not condone the action which is being taken. I deplore anything which could damage the health of patients or the interests of the NHS.

It is the present policy allowed by statute and agreed with the medical profession to include pay beds in NHS hospitals. The Government has however set up a joint working party with the medical profession to consider the terms on which consultants are employed, including the arrangements for private practice, and had it in mind to present its proposals early next year. For their part, the BMA and HCSA and the Government, have agreed to expedite very considerably the work of the working party, both on the consultant contract and on private practice within NHS hospitals, and it was decided to aim at agreement in the working party in November 1974.

The BMA and HCSA welcome the Secretary of State's intervention in the dispute at Charing Cross Hospital and in view of this have agreed to call off their threatened action on Monday, on the understanding that the other parties will also call off their action in any NHS hospitals involved.

In the circumstances of such a general agreement and while awaiting the report of the working party, the Secretary of State has made it clear that it is not her intention to make any arbitrary reduction in the present allocations of pay beds.

With regard to the distribution of private beds at Charing Cross Hospital, when private patients are treated for clinical reasons in special units elsewhere in the hospital the equivalent number of beds in the private floor will be occupied by NHS patients thus ensuring a mixed floor, and releasing acute beds elsewhere in the hospital. In the light of this NUPE and COHSE have agreed to call on their members throughout the country to discontinue their action and await the report.

From the British Medical Association—6th July 1974:
Rt. Hon. Mrs. Barbara Castle.
Secretary of State for Social Services,
Department of Health and Social Security,
Alexander Fleming House,
Elephant and Castle,
London, S.E.1.

Dear Mrs. Castle,

I am writing on behalf of the Chairman of Council, Mr. Walpole Lewin, about the reports which have appeared in today's Press following our 10 hour discussions last night. Whilst I agree that the hour was very late, we were under the impression that we would have an

opportunity to talk to the Press late last night. In the event, we were able only to have a brief interview with the Press Association.

To put the record straight, I wish to emphasise that we felt able to call off our threatened action only because

(1) you had agreed to include in the statement the fact that you "did not condone the action which had been taken at Charing Cross and deplored anything which could damage the health of patients or the interests of the NHS";

(2) that there would be no reduction in the number of private beds at Charing Cross;

(3) that until the Owen Working Party had reported it will remain the policy of the Government to permit pay beds in NHS hospitals.

(4) that it was not your intention to make any arbitrary reduction in the present allocation of pay beds;

(5) that the BMA and the Government have agreed to expedite the work of the Owen Working Party both on the consultant contract and on private practice. You have made your Government's position on the future of private practice quite clear. We for our part have made our position quite clear that we wish to preserve private beds in the public sector. Everything must therefore depend on the finding of the Owen Working Party which we agreed must be hastened.

Finally, I wish to make it known that the BMA's delegation throughout yesterday's discussions included 2 representatives from the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, including their President.

In the interests of those whom we represent it is essential that all these points should receive the earliest publicity and with your knowledge I am therefore issuing a copy of this letter to the Press."

Yours sincerely,

DEREK STEVENSON,

Secretary.

From the Secretary of State for Social Services—8th July 1974:
Dr. Derek Stevenson, CBE,
British Medical Association,
Tavistock Square,
London, WC1H 9JP.

Dear Dr. Stevenson,

Thank you for your letter of 6th July about our discussions on Friday evening. Like you I am sorry that owing to the lateness of the hour when we completed our discussions, you did not have a full opportunity of making your position clear to the Press, and I welcome this chance of confirming your explanation of what we agreed.

You will of course accept that the Government is committed through its Manifesto to the phasing out of private practice from the hospital service and I for my part fully recognise that the BMA remains opposed to this policy. In setting up the Joint Working Party we neither of us surrendered our basic point


of view but we desired genuinely to work out together a new charter for consultants and, as far as the question of private practice in the hospital service is concerned, we no doubt each hope we can convert the other. As you say in your letter I do not in any way condone attempts to pre-empt our discussions by industrial action from any quarter and I was happy to assure you, that as part of our firm settlement and in this spirit, I do not intend to withdraw authorisations for pay beds or arbitrarily to reduce their number while await

ing the report. I also confirm that the agreement reached over the private floor at Charing Cross does not involve a reduction in the number of pay beds but affects their distribution throughout the hospital group.

I am glad we were able to agree to speed up the work of the Joint Working Party and I still cherish the hope that we might be able to reach a degree of agreement at any rate.

Yours sincerely,

BARBARA CASTLE.

SCHOOL LEAVING AGE

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the problems that have arisen as a result of the raising of the school leaving age to 16 years; and calls upon the Government, as a matter of urgency, to provide that those children whose best interests would be served by leaving at 15 be permitted to do so.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection of Private Members' time. Perhaps I should begin, as seems to be the rage these days, by declaring an interest. It is that 75 per cent. of my children are under the age of 15, and I should not wish any of them, when they reach that age, to be compelled to stay at school against their will.
I have been a Member of the House for four months now, and this is the first time that I have drawn first place in the Ballot for Private Members' motions. I have chosen this subject for debate with considerable care. I have chosen it partly because I believe that it is an issue of the first importance, both in itself and in the principles which, as I shall try to show, it exemplifies, and also because it cuts right across the party political divide.
The raising of the school leaving age to 16 has, for more than a decade, been a bipartisan cause. It was the Conservatime Party which, when last in office, eventually implemented this consensus policy. I very much hope that during the debate today, as we re-examine this issue in the light of the experience of the extra year at school, hon. Members on both sides of the House will not feel obliged to speak in terms of party political prejudice, but instead will follow the path, as I shall try to do, of open-mindedness and objectivity and, above all, reason. I do not believe that there can be any serious dissent from the first part of the motion, expressing as it does the concern at the problems that have arisen following the raising of the school leaving age to 16.
The first year of this new compulsory extra year at school is now virtually over, and we see that truancy, which before the change was running at the appalling level of 500,000 children every day, has this year increased, on the best available esti

mates, by at least 40 per cent., and the bulk of that rise has been among 15-yearolds.
A recent survey by the Manchester social services department has even concluded that the extra year at school may be driving some of these adolescent rebels against compulsory education to crime. If that is so—and that has arisen out of the survey; I have no independent evidence—it is hardly surprising, since one effect of the raising of the school leaving age has been to make it illegal for 15-year-olds to take up honest employment.
Within the schools themselves, which, let us remember, had ample time to prepare for this measure—I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has come into the Chamber because I know of his concern with this issue, partly because of the Labour Government's postponement of the raising of the school leaving age—teachers throughout the country are at their wits' end as they report huge rises in vandalism and disruption from a minority of 15-year-olds who see school almost as a kind of prison camp. This behaviour is not merely a further burden on the hard-pressed teachers themselves. By damaging schools and taking up an inordinate share of teachers' time in trying to contain it, it is directly lowering the quality of education available to the majority of the age group.
No one would say—and I am not saying—that these trends in our schools are due solely to the raising of the school leaving age, but what I do say, and what I do not think can be denied, is that the raising of the school leaving age has greatly exacerbated this situation.
Within the last three months, the annual conferences of the National Association of Schoolmasters and the National Association of Head Teachers have passed motions calling on the Government to reconsider the raising of the school leaving age, and my spies inform me that even within the serried ranks of the National Union of Teachers there are growing signs of scepticism among those who have to teach 15-year-olds.
It is true that a number of teachers—in my view rightly—were against ROSLA—I am sorry to use that dread-full term of shorthand—right from the


beginning. But what is particularly striking is the growing number of teachers originally in favour and who now, in the light of experience, are openly coming out and declaring that the step, however well-intentioned—and I accept that it was well-intentioned—was a great mistake.
Only recently, for example, 41 headmasters from the Bristol area, all originally pro-ROSLA, wrote to The Times Educational Supplement deploring the change. Only three days ago, Miss M. Proctor, the Chief Educational Psychologist for the Greater London Council, told the Daily Mirror:
Withdrawn children who find school a burden become more withdrawn, the aggressive increasingly aggressive, and the child who tends to run away will do so more frequently. My view is that if children are mature and have a job they could be released before 16.
Finally, let me quote Dr. Harry Judge, the Director of the Oxford University Department of Educational Studies and a man greatly thought of in the educational world. He publicly declared a few months ago:
It is now abundantly clear that the raising of the school leaving age was a mindless error, which should be reversed at the earliest practicable date.
Before any hon. Members opposite sneer at that as a typical élitist comment from the home of lost causes, let me point out that before his recent appointment to that post, Harry Judge was headmaster of Banbury Comprehensive School, the school eulogised in The Times by the late Dick Crossman as the practical proof of the success of the comprehensive system.
If I have concentrated so far on the views of teachers, it is because it is here that the most dramatic swing in opinion has occurred. But of course the views of parents and children themselves are also of the utmost importance. There, whether we look at the reluctant and recalcitrant minority of pupils or the majority whose education often suffers because of that minority, we see that there was never any great enthusiasm or support for ROSLA in the first place and certainly is not today.
Harry Judge, in the passage I quoted, referred to the ROSLA decision as "mindless". I think he meant that it was taken on the basis of blind faith rather than any rational argument. None

the less, ostensible arguments were put forward and still are put forward, and they need to be met and examined.
First, it is held that the objections to raising the compulsory minimum leaving age to 16 today are precisely the same as those made when it was raised to 15 a quarter of a century ago and to 14 roughly half a century ago, and that they are as invalid now as they were then.
That is a curious argument. If it is accepted at face value, there must logically be an equally strong case for compelling youths to stay at school until 17 or then 18. A line has to be drawn somewhere. I concede that it is difficult to say dogmatically precisely where that line should be. Perhaps that is why the sort of flexibility urged in the motion is rather more realistic—I would suggest much more realistic—than the rigidity of the present system.
The second of the three main arguments for ROSLA is that the State should provide for all children what the best parents would want for their own children. But do the best parents want to coerce their own children? I find that hard to believe. This is linked with one of the biggest changes which has occurred since the Crowther Report of 1959, which was the last occasion on which the subject of the school leaving age was thoroughly aired and from which the bipartisan commitment to raise it directly sprang.
At that time, only a small minority of children were staying on after 15, and raising the age then was seen as a means of preventing most parents from removing children who, if left to themselves, would probably have wished to stay. In other words, parents were to be prevented from coercing their children into leaving too soon, whether to earn more money or for any other reason.
But today, with the majority of pupils, even pre-ROSLA, voluntarily staying on beyond 15, with the increased maturity of 15-year-olds and with the decline in parental authority which we may regret but which is still a fact, the step has become not the prevention of coercion but the reverse, the coercion of 15-year-olds to stay at school against their will. These, incidentally, are people who, if this Parliament were of normal duration, would be voting on the destiny of their nation at the next General Election.
Not only is coercion objectionable in principle wherever it can reasonably be avoided; it also brings up directly the question of motivation. The benefit of a further year at school depends more than anything else on the motivation being right, on the 15-year-olds actually wanting to be there and wanting to get the benefits which are to be got from a good school. Coercion not only tends to destroy any motivation on the part of those who otherwise would have left; by making the extra year obligatory, it also weakens the motivation of many who would otherwise have stayed on of their own accord. The old saying that one volunteer is worth 10 pressed men applies just as fully in education as in any other field.
But the third and most deeply felt argument for ROSLA is the conviction among many Labour Members, including the Under-Secretary who I hope will state the Government's view tonight, that raising the age to 16 was a profoundly egalitarian measure. This House debated last week whether egalitarianism should have overriding pride of place as the objective of education policy. I do not wish to go over that ground again but there is obviously a difference between the two sides of the House on it and I respect that difference.
But even those who go nap on egalitarianism must concede that there is no evidence to suggest that raising the age to 16 was an equalising device. Studies done in considerable depth in America—notably those by Coleman and Jencks—show no connection between spending on education and progress towards equality. Other studies have shown, not surprisingly, that if education has any important bearing at least on equality of opportunity, the key lies not at 15 or 16 but in the preschool years, in greater nursery school provision.
But there is no need to rely on academic or other studies, however thorough, to pour doubt on the notion of ROSLA as an egalitarian measure. It stands to reason that if, as is all too evident, ROSLA is producing problems, those problems will be and are at their most acute in schools in deprived areas in the inner cities—just the schools which can least afford additional problems—resulting, if anything, in even greater inequality.

For there is already evidence that now that the compulsory minimum school leaving age has been raised to 16, children who are in what are known as the advantaged areas, notably the South-East of England, are simply staying on until the age of 17 in order to maintain their edge when it comes to applying for jobs. So the argument that ROSLA is an egalitarian measure, a great equaliser, is seen to be wholly without foundation. It is very striking that in the lower sixth forms, already fewer than one pupil in four is there because he or she is going on to higher or further education.
I would not, of course, wish to maintain that there is not one 15-year-old throughout the length and breadth of the country who may not be benefiting from a year's additional schooling under duress. What is clear is that, as things stand, the overall balance is unfavourable, and more harm than good is being done. But even if the overall balance were marginally favourable, there is still the question of costs and priorities. The monetary and resource cost of keeping a minority of 15-year-olds at school against their will, the cost of keeping children in Surrey and elsewhere voluntarily at school until the age of 17 in order that they can maintain their competitive edge in the employment market, and the loss of national output from those 15-year-olds who would be happier, perhaps, working on a farm—all this adds up to a very considerable sum, quite apart from the cost in terms of wear and tear on the teachers concerned.
It is impossible to believe, looking at educational needs as a whole or, even wider, at the needs for public spending in social matters, that this can possibly be the wisest use of scarce resources, particularly at a time of considerable economic stringency. I find it quite impossible to believe that if we were starting now with that amount of resources to play with and asking what was the best use to which this could be put, we would say that the best use was to raise the school leaving age to 16.
What, then, should be done to remedy the situation as I have outlined it? I trust that there will be many fertile suggestions from hon. Members on both sides of the House during the debate. One or two possibilities, however, have


already been mentioned and put into practice in some cases. In the seminal Crowther Report, to which I have already referred, there was a note of reservation to the main ROSLA recommendation, signed by nine members of the committee headed by Lord Crowther himself, which recognised that school would be inappropriate for a minority of 15-year-olds and recommended that local education authorities should have the power to permit such boys and girls to leave school at the age of 15 and to take up
hard work in an adult but understanding environment.
That was a very substantial minority, even at that time.
In New Zealand—a country governed by a Labour Government and with a very good record of social and welfare care—the school leaving age used to be 15, but a law has very recently been passed to provide for a flexible system which would allow the more mature children to leave school earlier, under specified conditions.
Lastly, let me quote the example of France. There the school leaving age was raised to 16 as far back as 1967. But, in the light of experience, a new law was passed in 1971 to allow any 15-year-old who had reached a specified educational standard to leave school to enter into proper industrial apprenticeship. Last autumn a further law, the loi royer, was passed which amended the earlier law and provided for pre-apprenticeship courses to begin at 14.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the reaching of a specified educational standard, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, what is meant by the "best interests" of the children who should be allowed to leave? The hon. Gentleman has not yet covered what he means by the "best interests." Is that what is meant by that phrase in the motion?

Mr. Lawson: It is, indeed, part of what I mean by the "best interests". That phrase is deliberately widely drawn because many other factors have to be taken into account, such as the maturity of the child and other factors which, I am sure, are well known to the hon. Gentleman.
There may be more radical policies than even this one which we should be

looking at—I do not want to close any options—and more radical proposals which would have to be looked at in conjunction with opportunities to return voluntarily to part-time education at a later date when the motivation clearly exists.
If the people of this country have two major complaints about Governments and politicians, they are probably these: first, that we are never prepared—certainly Governments of any party are never prepared—to admit that we are wrong; secondly, that we pay no attention to public opinion. The school leaving age is an issue on which public opinion is becoming increasingly clear and evident. It deserves to be heeded. Here, too, is a case in which any Government who have the courage and humility to say so would gain credit not merely for doing what is right but for manifestly being influenced by public opinion and, above all, for having the guts to say "We were wrong. We did it with the best of intentions, but we made a mistake and we shall change it."

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I want to declare a couple of interests. The first, I suspect, is very untypical, so I do not want to press it. I have a 15-year-old son who is determined to leave school at the earliest possible age and would very much like to have left as soon as he was 15. I also have a wife who has just finished teaching in what the Inner London Education Authority now calls a "sanctuary" in a London comprehensive school. It may be that my views on this question, which do not correspond with those of the majority of my hon. Friends, have influenced me, but it is worth stating them.
My blood chills at the sort of reasons put forward by some hon. Members of the Opposition in their desire to put the school leaving age down. I am glad that the Liberal Party has changed its spokesman for this debate. That expresses a great wisdom in a party which one had thought to be somewhat short on that quality. However, when the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) uses phrases such as "perhaps working on a farm" and that sort of thing, it brings out in stark detail the profoundly élitist view


of society of hon. Members of the Opposition, which is completely opposite to my view of society. When in argument for lowering the school leaving age they use phrases such as "scarce resources", that shows what a cold economic attitude they have to education. When they quote with approval phrases from the Crowther Report, such as
hard work in an adult but understanding environment
one can imagine oneself back in the workhouses of the nineteenth century. That is their sort of view of society.
It is my thesis, from the Government side of the House, that just as we have lowered the age of majority from 21 to 18, one day we shall have to lower the school leaving age from 16 to 14 and even lower—but we shall have to wait until we have a profoundly different, a fairer and a more equal society than we have at present. I think that needs saying because I do not want my hon. Friends to get hooked on schooling as the only road to equality and progress.
Having met and talked to some of the people from America whom the hon. Member for Blaby mentioned—Coleman and Jencks—and having read their books, I am profoundly impressed by their argument that over the past 100 years the institution of compulsory education, although it has had the reputation of being a catalyst for equality, has not been so, and that there is little evidence that the road to equality lies through more and more compulsory schooling. I say this also because I feel that we must not underestimate in the House the strain put upon teachers at the moment. I do believe that that strain is related substantially to the raising of the school leaving age, but rather that it has to do with a whole range of factors which quite accidentally happen to come together in 1974.
The effect of lowering the age of majority from 21 to 18 has been to make 13, 14, 15 and 16-year-olds far more conscious of their rights and less amenable to authority of all kinds. I for one welcome that. I want a nation of citizens and of young people of 14, 15 and 16—I have treated my own children of that age in this way—who like to take decisions for themselves without people all the time telling them what to do.
To an extent I welcome that, but for the teachers who have to operate a compulsory education system, based on compulsory attendance, it has added to the strain unduly. We on this side of the House—if I may mention my colleagues for a moment—do a disservice to them if we do not recognise the strain under which they are working. I did not realise to any extent the strain under which they are working—I have not taught in these circumstances for a decade, and school has changed very much in that time—until my wife went back to teach in a local comprehensive school. It was brought home to me how different teaching is in 1974 from teaching in 1964 or 1954—and that ought to be recognised.
Another point about the raising of the school leaving age which we on this side of the House neglect and underestimate at our peril is the extent to which it is a tax on the poor. The evidence of the Child Poverty Action Group to the Education Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee the other day brought home very well the fact that educational maintenance allowances, which before the school-leaving age was put up were available for 15-to-16-year-olds, are now cut out for 15-to-16-year-olds, and the fact of how large families have tended in the past to rely on the income of their 15-year-olds to supplement the family income.
It is an absolute disgrace that that should be so. If a Government take it upon themselves to raise the school leaving age to 16, they should at the same time make provision for those families who would be the most severely hit by this decision. I do not believe that when we raised the school leaving age to 16 we made sufficient provision in that way. In fact, we did not make provision at all. When I say "we" I mean the British nation, because I think it was a consensus policy which would have been adopted by both sides.
This matter is brought out by notes which the Inner London Education Authority has sent to some London hon. Members on this problem. We must not believe that the difficulties being experienced in our schools—which are the result of a number of factors—will go away, or that they are a temporary phenomenon for only a year or two and that they will then disappear. These difficulties are with us for good. I quote


one paragraph of the ILEA attitude, which is a wise, sane and balanced attitude, on this matter:
The major problem associated with ROSLA has been a small, hard core of resentful pupils who have seen the extra year as an infringement of their personal liberty. Previously, these same pupils presented similar problems in their fourth year. The problem is now exacerbated by their increased size, desire for financial independence and the status of young adulthood. Families who are in difficult financial straits often support such youngsters in their resentment at the enforced delay before they can make some contribution to family resources.
This is a problem which we should not ignore.
I cannot support the motion because of the reasons for which it was moved, but I believe that one day we must seriously think about bringing the school leaving age down. Why do I say this? The first reason is that which has been occurring to the New Zealand Labour Government over the past two years, and which that Government have been discussing seriously. It is a straight, pure, civil libertarian reason. If my hon. Friends believe in civil liberties, why should these liberties suddenly start at age 16?
I disagree with the ILEA evidence in one respect, in that I do not think that all of the group referred to are what might be called the most deprived of youngsters—

Mr. Nigel Lawson: The hon. Gentleman says that he cannot support the motion for reasons which have been set out. Is he not aware that I went to great lengths to give the civil libertarian and anti-coercion reasons involved in this matter? Is he not agreeing that these are among the most important reasons involved?

Mr. Price: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me and hear me out he will get a better indication of why I cannot support him in the Lobby. I do not believe that all the young people who see the raising of the school leaving age as an infringement of their civil liberties are necessarily chip-on-the-shoulder types, as many people think of them—indeed, ILEA speaks of them as being of these types. I think that more and more of them—it is only a subjective judgment because there are no figures or evidence on this yet—are perfectly normal,

average, or above-average, intelligent youngsters—this may not be as true of the North-East as it is of London; I would like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to listen to this—who see the whole educational system, with its O-levels and A-levels and credential network right up to degrees, as an élitist structure which we must get rid of one day if we are to have a proper Socialist society. Where there are two groups coming together—those who simply resent school and those who think about the education system and can see it far more clearly, from inside the school, for the unequal thing that it is at the moment—many schools have a difficult problem.
The second reason why I believe that we must one day think very carefully about ceasing to want to corral all 15- and 16-year-olds—I emphasise "one day", because I believe this is very important—is that I hope that one day we shall cease to equate education and schooling and will realise how totally different they are.
The Education Act 1944 wisely took this into account when it provided that it was the duty of a parent to cause his child to receive education either by full-time attendance at school or otherwise. The "otherwise" section of the 1944 Act was the acceptance by that Act that education can take place in places other than a school; and with certain youngsters it takes place far more efficiently in places other than schools. When we understand that, we shall not be so keen on the corralling nature of compulsory education, which it is as well for my hon Friends to remember was, in essence, a device in the nineteenth century to try to raise Britain's economic efficiency so that we could not get beaten into the ground by the Germans. That was the most powerful motive behind the introduction of compulsory education.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was due to the activities of the then Conservative Government in about 1902 that there was not compulsory secondary education for all but a reduced elementary education which lasted until 1944?

Mr. Price: I agree that not only in that way in 1902 but in all sorts of other ways the Conservatives fatally distorted the beginnings that had been made of an


education system. All the problems that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) talked about in his campaign to divide the country once more against comprehensive education stem from certain decisions taken by the Conservative Party in 1902—before he was born, I admit.
The danger that politicians face in so harnessing children to the school bandwagon is that they fail to examine the type of animal that schooling has become over the last 30 or 40 years. To some youngsters schooling appears to have two functions which override all the other functions, however much the teachers within the schools want to get down to genuine education.
The first function is one of gaoling. It is a function of saying to the children "You arrive at 9 a.m. and you leave at 4 p.m." An increasing amount of administration in a school inevitably, as the years pass, gets devoted to this registration function.
It is not just the gaoling function. It is the function of keeping the kids out of the way so that the wives can go out to work and the country's economic network can grind ahead. I do not want to push wives out to work or insist that they should not go out to work. I believe in a civil libertarian attitude to this—women should be allowed to choose. To those within them—the youngsters—schools appear to be concerned far more with the corralling or gaoling function.
The second function, which to me as a Socialist is much more serious, is one of credentialing, a function which places the passing of examinations—O-levels, CSEs, A-levels, marks, testing—far above the other functions of genuine education with which schools should be concerned. The money spent on credentialing far exceeds the money spent on educating a child. It far exceeds the cost, for instance, of buying the books for a year's course.
If we are to save our schools from being more and more looked down upon by a proportion of the youngsters who go through them, we need to ensure that far more education goes on in them and far less credentialing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him, but he has now been speaking for 20 minutes. We have very limited time.

Mr. Price: I will go on for no more than 60 seconds longer, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot support the motion. I do not want to lower the age until there is genuine fairness in Britain and a system whereby the credentials people get at school do not override everything else. Where we have such a system, I hope that we on this side will have the courage not to believe that we need to corral children quite as much as we have done in the past.

4.26 p.m.

Dr. Keith Hampson: As I was trained for the Certificate of Education and have been in a university, I am very conscious of the fads and fashionable notions to which education is all too prone. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was probably correct in saying that too often there is too much blind faith behind such notions. The raising of the school leaving age was possibly one example of this, but it certainly was not "mindless" in the sense that it was given no thought. It had been pressed for since the Spens Report before the war.
There were, and I believe that there still are, very good reasons for maintaining the raised leaving age. Therefore, I would not support any move to reduce it, partly also because I do not believe that we should keep tinkering with bits of the education system. We need, but have not done it since 1944, a new oversight, a totally new look at the whole system and the way that the various parts—the primary, the secondary, and the tertiary—fit together, and at what the consequences of dealing with one sector in a certain way are for other sectors.
Further, the whole idea always was that raising the leaving age was an opportunity for children to raise their sights, to take on new interests, to look to new horizons, particularly children from backgrounds and homes that are constrained and are of a certain social character where they have not been encouraged to look ahead, to have the opportunities to


read, and to have the advantages that many other children who do well in the system have had.
Although growing numbers stay on voluntarily, nevertheless since the war there have been children who have not stayed on because of their home backgrounds or other social pressures but who could have benefited from staying on.
I believe that Britain has fallen behind in this respect compared with other countries. The 1970 figures showed that of the age group 15 to 18 only 40 per cent. in Britain were in full-time education, whereas in the United States the figure was 84 per cent. and of all the OECD countries there are 16 that have a higher percentage staying on at school than we have. But we cannot escape the fact that there are problems. Clearly there are growing discipline and truancy problems as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby said in a well-argued and level-headed speech. There is tremendous strain and pressure on teachers in certain inner city areas, and notably London.
The Metropolitan Police have themselves come to the conclusion—and it is a terribly sad conclusion—that the growing problem of juvenile crime is related to the frustration of children who have to stay on, who feel "corralled", to use that excellent word of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), and who have truanted as a result. The Metropolitan Police estimate that half of the burglaries, one-third of the shopliftings and 40 per cent. of robberies are now committed by juveniles, and they believe that there is some correlation between the frustration of children and crime statistics which needs to be considered.
We knew even before the raising of the school leaving age there were certain rigidities within the system. I suggest that certain improvements could be made. In their last year a number of students—"pupils" is the wrong term at that age—have written to tell me that they had taken their O-levels and that they would like to take up the opportunity of a job or an apprenticeship scheme. They have asked me to help as the school had said "No, you cannot." I had to reply that I could not do anything and that they were obliged to stay on or to go back the following autumn.
I was written to the other day by a small engineering firm in Ilkley. The letter says that Ilkley Comprehensive School had told some boys who had taken their O-levels that it would be "releasing them straight away" as it did not require them for any other courses. The letter then reads:
We took several of these boys on as apprentices particularly to enable them to obtain some practical experience in our works before they go on their first year full-time course at Keighley Technical College. We applied in the normal way to the Ministry of Social Security for their insurance cards to be told that we were illegally employing them. We therefore, after having had them with us for about two weeks, had to send them all home and cannot re-engage them until the school term ends officially.
Is there not some commonsense position which we can take? Cannot we produce more flexibility in the system? Why is it that we get so hidebound? Why do we take such rigid views on a matter which should be so flexible? Flexibility should be the essence of education. It is human experience. It needs sensitivity and understanding. The examples which I have just referred to are clearly cases in which the young people concerned have their qualifications. Clearly they should not be kept at school, in the classroom.
Equally, there are exceedingly difficult boys and those who are determined in their own minds that they will not derive further benefit from school. They know that they have reached the school leaving age but yet again they must stay at school until the school term officially ends. Can they not be released? After all, they are 16. I agree that there may be classroom and course planning problems in adopting this procedure but I urge most strongly that there should be common sense and flexibility of approach. Certainly I cannot do better than support what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said when he urged that education was more than schooling. Why have we reached the state in which we believe that education must be done in something called a school? That attitude has been prevailing not for generations but for hundreds of years. Is it not time that we started to think in broader terms? There are experiences outside the school, and institutions outside the classrooms, from which students could derive enormous benefit if only they were allowed to be released.
Obviously certain schools have been flexible in the way in which they have dealt with the raising of the school leaving age, but many have not adopted that approach. There is, of course, the problem of the attitude of some teachers. We all know—and I say this with no disrespect to the profession—that teachers can be highly conservative in approach. We all know that sixth forms and sixth-form courses tend to be rather traditional and overwhelmingly academically oriented. I support—many of my hon. Friends frequently point out this need—the need to maintain academic standards, but it is true that the vast majority of students in the sixth forms go not into higher education but straight into full-time employment. The nature of the traditional sixth form tends to be carried over elsewhere in the school so that often the education that is provided is not entirely appropriate for the majority of students passing through the schools.
There should be total flexibility in the last years at school, the 15-to-18 range. There should be flexibility for the academically gifted. We should set as our aim the establishment in as many areas as possible of a complex of specialist schools, so that there is available a much wider range of special courses, in music and languages, for example. In almost every country in Europe, and particularly those east of the Iron Curtain, there is a new emphasis on specialist schools which concentrate on, for example, French, German or Russian. Why not allow a child who is not at one of those schools to go there from his own school to take a special course? Why not allow him to go to a technical college or some other institution of further education while staying under the auspices of his school? Why has a pupil to be in a classroom, in a certain school, just because that school happens to be in his catchment area?
If specialisation is possible for the academically gifted, why should it not be equally possible for others? Why should they not, with close counselling and with the schools' guidance, with pupils going back at certain times each week to their school, be allowed to take up other courses elsewhere or to take up apprenticeship schemes or sandwich courses? The variety is almost infinite. Why can

we not accept the principle of this, and seek to make is possible?
I thought it was unfortunate that certain feelings built up when the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) introduced his Ten Minute Rule Bill. At least, there was some flexibility in the scheme that he put forward, despite the way in which he presented it. It was unfortunate that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) opted for the final phrase of his speech—namely "the answer lies in the schools". That is not the principle that I believe should be accepted in education And that is the only reason why I argue that we must look again at the raising of the school leaving age—so as to get flexibility and differentiation in education.
I hope that we can bring more people into education. I hope that parents, for example, can be involved in more ways, possibly through governing boards or in other respects, as a means of getting into the schools new ideas and attitudes, as a pressure on teachers to break down old barriers and enabling us to widen the horizon for all children, both for those who are academic and for those who at the moment feel imprisoned or corralled. We must remember, though, that many children feel that in staying on they are gaining nothing of value, so this motion has a point. But it talks about "in their own interests". Who will determine whether they are gaining any benefit? They may benefit, but it is hard for us outside to tell. I have a horrible suspicion that if we do not take a careful oversight of the whole matter we may, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely, merely "legalise truancy". That is not what I wish to do. However, that is what may happen if we are not careful in proposing changes in the leaving age, and if we are not careful we shall find that what we are proposing will be an incentive to some pupils to cause more trouble, to be awkward in school and to be destructive, because they will know that such conduct is the way out, an escape route. Apart from that proviso I go along with my hon. Friend in so far as he is urging flexibility for the final years at school.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I want t o intervene, briefly, because I was active in the campaign that


led to the raising of the school leaving age. I agree thoroughly with what the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) has said.
The Crowther Committee believed that there was sufficient elasticity in the present provisions to deal sensibly with most of the problems. That is a matter to which we should call the attention of the local education authorities. I wish to go back to the Crowther Committee because of the reasons which have been given for raising the school leaving age. Crowther gave two overriding reasons. The first reason, which is always quoted, is that we must consider the raising of the school leaving age as:
 … an investment in national efficiency.
In pursuit of that, the Crowther Committee put forward the arguments which are well known to the House. It demonstrated that one result of having the school leaving age fixed at 15 was that a lot of talent was undeveloped. The committee found that many talented young people left school who should have stayed. In broader terms, the argument is much more difficult to prove, so I shall give two illustrations.
A year or so ago, when our shipbuilders decided to build the new covered yard on the Wear, one of their experts went to Japan. When he came back I asked him "What is the advantage which the Japanese have over us in shipbuilding?" and his reply, without hesitation, was "Education".
The other important illustration is the disparity between the regions. This is why I argued years ago, when the question of raising the school leaving age was being much discussed, that it might have been done by regions. It is demonstrably true that there is a correlation between the difficulties of the Northern Region and the fact that we have there the lowest percentage of pupils staying on beyond the statutory school leaving age. I am sure that this affected adaptation to new techniques and adaptation to the problems attendant upon the bringing in of new industry. It applied to questions of training and retraining and the rest. I am sure that there is a close relevance here.
I am convinced, therefore, that the major argument of Crowther is borne out: in short, if we are concerned about

capital investment, this is probably the top priority. But what people fail to recognise time and again is that this was not the major argument of Crowther. Crowther's major argument was simply that it is a crying disgrace in our society that we allow young people to go out into industry and to face the rigours of our society so ill equipped. The important sentence in Crowther was this—at the end of Chanter 6:
If it be regarded as a social service, as part of the condition of the people, there seems to us to be no social injustice in our community at the present time more loudly crying out for reform than the condition in which scores of thousands of our children are released into the labour market.
This is why I quarrel with the rather mean motion before us. Those to whom the motion refers are typical of the very people who must be better equipped by our education system. I want to emphasise the questions which still remain for urgent consideration. Many of them ought to have been considered before we raised the school leaving age. First, what about maintenance allowances? I am glad that the Expenditure Committee is looking at this question. If we accept the Crowther argument, there is an overwhelming case for maintenance allowances to ensure that the children who show their ability by the age of 16 remain in full-time education.
The second and crucial issue is that, with five-year full-time secondary education, the objective, the concentration of the system, must be on the school leaver. We have inherited an education system which does not do that. It is geared to, is dependent upon and is shaped by the idea that children stay on at school and go into other forms of full-time education. But these are the children who can cope by themselves. If we are to do what is needed—nearly every other country has done so—we must take an entirely different view of secondary education. Our purpose must be to accept the Crowther objectives and act on the principle that the major purpose of secondary education is to equip school leavers to face society and become happy citizens and efficient workers.
As I want to be brief, I shall say no more about that, though I recognise that it carries with it all sorts of problems. When, for example, we held our Select Committee inquiry into teacher training,


I was shocked at the lack of preparation for the raising of the school leaving age. Even now, these concerns are not properly taken into account in teacher training we have had a recent report pleading that teachers should be trained more with a sociological background so as to recognise the difficulties and special circumstances of children, and we have had the recommendation that teachers should have training to make them better able to appreciate the needs of a multiracial society, and so on. But all these questions should have been taken into account and decided earlier. I recognise that it is easy to say that, and the difficulty—these will be my last words—is that in this country we do not have the machinery to tackle problems like these. I see that the hon. Gentleman is amused by that, but he should not be.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman said that these would be his last words, and I said to myself "I hope not".

Mr. Willey: I am sorry: I must resist the temptation to make assumptions adverse to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he does appreciate that we do not have the manner and means to tackle the problem. I should like the Department to think seriously about it and see how we might get together the people who could take formative decisions in these most important spheres for educational decision.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Tony Durant: Having sat through two previous debates on this subject and not had an opportunity to speak, I am glad to be able to take part today. I spent five years as chairman of an education committee in an excepted district, so I have some practical experience, even if only in administration.
It needs to be said at the outset, I believe, that the position is not as dramatic or chaotic as a good many would have us believe. I am sure that the vast majority of schools are coping with the situation very well, and we are talking about only a small percentage and their particular problems.
Also, because we, as politicians, have spent so much time talking about

secondary reorganisation, those of us who had to consider the implementation of the decision to raise the school leaving age were too often inclined to put it on one side while we spent our time preparing new plans for secondary reorganisation. If we had not had to do that, we might have given more time and attention to the ROSLA situation, which was an important step in the development of education.
One of the principal problems is the earlier maturity of young people. We are dealing here with young adults, not with children. It is the use of the word "school" and the fact that they are still at school which many of them resent. In addition, it is a regrettable circumstance that teachers are not experienced enough in dealing with the non-academic child who stays on at school. The whole of their gearing, as it were, is towards the academic child, not to the other children.
In my view, it was probably the wrong time to do it, but the school leaving age is now raised it has happened and it is now a fact of life. No doubt, the money could have been spent on more nursery provision—for which I have campaigned vigorously throughout most of the time I have been concerned in education—and more could have been spent on primary education. But, as I say, ROSLA is now a fact, and we have it with us. In passing, I must say that it is an odd society which spends its effort keeping people in school when they want to leave but will not let in at the other end those who want to come in. Yet that has been our situation in recent times.
In spite of the comments by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) about approaching this matter in economic terms, I believe that we must consider economics in relation to education, for both the nation and the individual. If the individual has a good background, he will get a better deal economically. It is, therefore, an economic question at the same time.
I urge caution in thinking about going back. I do not subscribe to all the views of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who, I thought, got rather carried away on this subject and exaggerated the present problems. After all, we have had only one year of experience. Indeed, we are only just finishing that


year now. It would be wrong and extremely dangerous to make hasty judgments.
I agree with those who speak of our schools as being too university-oriented. This is another aspect of the matter to be considered. Our whole system tends to look towards the university and then we have the rest. We must do some fresh thinking about that. I do not like talk about the academic stream and the rest. After all, the rest are the largest part. We ought to think more about the rest and not quite so much sometimes about the academic.
If we go back, we shall, I believe, have fewer people completing their O-levels and their CSE exams, and this will give us fewer people with qualifications. It is difficult enough now for an employer to ask young people what educational qualifications they have. The CSE results are pretty difficult to sort out. I tend to ask what subjects they have, because this gives the only way by which one can analyse their qualifications. I am inclined now not to ask whether they have their O-levels. It does not mean so much now as the old examination results did, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Mr. John Wells: Is not insistence by an interviewing employer on asking young people what their qualifications are only an indication of the indolence of the employer in asking such questions, which are generally utterly irrelevant to the work which the young people will undertake?

Mr. Durant: There is an element of truth in that. On the other hand, one wants to know whether they can read and write. That is helpful if one is running a business. It also shows the interests of the person and his outlook. We have to look more carefully at the syllabus in relation to the raising of the school leaving age. A great deal more work has to be done on the general subjects which people are to take.
There must be much more research into facilities. Here I must declare an interest in that I am involved in a company which makes audio-visual aids. Having declared my interest I would like to challenge my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) who made some disparaging remarks the other day about closed-circuit television and so on.

He is getting a little out of touch with reality in a society where the visual factor is something that people live with all the time. If education does not take account of it we shall get nowhere.
As society changes so must teaching methods. There must be more self-teaching aids among young people. I am very keen to see this. I recently carried out a survey into the careers guidance given in schools. Frankly it is a pretty lamentable story. I went to the youth employment office. I noticed that the banks and the Armed Services were keen on getting people. That was about it as far as the literature went. There was a trade union leaflet which told people to hurry up and join their union but it did not tell them what job to get first.
That was all the literature there was in the youth employment bureau. A great deal more work must be done in this area, and not only in the bureaux but in the schools, too. Careers guidance of varying sorts must be developed. Such work tends to be done by a teacher who has the spare time. We must encourage close liaison with local industries. Young people want to know what a job is like, whom they will be meeting and dealing with. It is not just pay and time off. They are much more interested in what sort of chaps they will be working with.
I support the motion to this extent: I would not like to see the school leaving age reduced, but I would like to see a far more flexible approach during the final year with more day release and more opportunities given to take courses and to get involved with the outside world so that there is a transition. If we leave things as they are and improve the syllabus, much of this criticism will fall away.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: We have had some thoughtful speeches from Conservative Members. It is interesting to note that they differed a good deal one from the other. There are some differences of opinion on the Labour side, too. I shall vote against this motion, Although it is rather subtly worded it has within it the old reaction against which I want to argue.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr Lawson) mentioned the various teachers' organisations which agreed with him. For


instance he mentioned, rather affectionately I thought, the National Association of Schoolmasters and the National Association of Head Teachers. I think that his tenderness towards them was precisely because they have come out more or less in agreement with his motion. Then he spoke about an organisation which is much bigger than all the others put together—and suddenly it had serried ranks. Apparently the others had not, but this one had. It has within it head teachers, class teachers and all the others.
There is a very great difference of opinion among us in this House and among teachers on this subject, which we debated last week, when I was not fortunate enough to be called to speak. We should not jump to hasty conclusions after less than a year of operating this scheme. To do so would be to formulate methods of approach with a precipitation which is not justified one iota by the realities.
In our earlier debate last week one hon. Member referred to a 60 per cent. truancy rate. I have raised this question in many places, and I cannot think where he got it from. I spent last Friday morning with the fifth form of a school talking about us in this Chamber. I hope that none of us ever plays truant. At this time of the year many hon. Members never seem to go into a school. They read the more exciting parts of the media and accept as gospel truth practically anything which is in accord with their own wishes.
If they were to go into a fifth or sixth form at this time they would find that there is a very civilised approach towards the young people there. If they have taken their examinations, many are allowed—they are not truanting—to stay away until they are needed for something. This kind of flexible arrangement is taking place on quite a grand scale. By no means can it be described as some kind of wilful absence from school.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) who says that this is a serious problem. But it is not nearly as big as it is said to be. There are forces which will always try to hold back education. In 1870 and at various other times words such as "coercion" and so on were used about sending five-year-olds to school. An hon.

Member said that his mother had left school at the age of 12. So did mine. There have been voices raised against increasing the school leaving age throughout.
When it went up from 14, I was teaching secondary children, and the same voices pointed out how dreadful this was, how teachers would never be able to cope and how there would be a terrible situation. These same people always seem to send their own children to school—to mitigate the difficulties—after the ages of 17, 18, 19, 20 and even 21. They do not seem to suffer very much. Conservative Members should ask themselves at what age they left school and at what age their children are leaving school. By how much did they mitigate the difficulties of large classes? They mitigated them as they have done with private beds, by paying for their children to go into classes of 12, by having more teachers in the schools.
One of the solutions to this problem is not to pay more money privately but to have more money for State education, to have more teachers in the schools and to provide more interesting courses. It is not possible to teach the assembly of a motor car to unacademic children if one teacher has to take 25 children. There should be fewer children per teacher. That requires more money.
Often it is other people's children about whom many of these voices are talking rather than their own. I do not necessarily mean the voices we have heard today. Every educational advance has had voices raised against it. More and more difficulties are pointed out and accentuated instead of being grappled with. By accentuating the problems and giving the media more grist to the mill instead of dealing with the realities, we deepen and intensify the social problem rather than solve it.
Education reformers have campaigned for 35 years for raising the school leaving age to 16. It gives me great joy to hear hon. Members opposite say that, although they want flexibility, they are unwilling to revert to the age of 15. When we have grappled with the problem of raising the age for the next two, three, four or five years it will disappear into antiquity. If we give teachers the necessary help to grapple with the problem, we shall not be discussing it in another


five years, as happened when we raised the age from 14 to 15.
I do not say that the two things are entirely synonymous. There will be new difficulties. There have been difficulties at every stage when the age has been raised. Many of the difficulties now are due to the media which are trying to get children to buy things for which they need more money and which are virtually corrupting them. More allowances are needed, together with other things, to help young people stay on at school. In London 76 per cent. of children were staying on voluntarily without a law stating that they had to do so.
We must give the minority of children who wish to stay on at school more inducements to do so in order that they may have a better education. The age has been raised to 16 for only a year. How can we formulate conclusions after such a short time? I hope that hon. Members who have yet to speak will agree with the points which most hon. Members have raised. It is hopeless to try to go back. We shall not go back, although there should be flexibility for the children.
I am against the view that going down the pit or into the mill at 15 years of age is further education for children. These are educational processes in the sense that the children are learning, but it young people stay at school longer and there is flexibility inside and outside the school we shall make a complete success of the extra year and I venture to say that one day, not so far distant, we shall seriously think of raising the age above 16 years.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I could not disagree more with the speech just made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). With all respect, it was the speech of a pedagogue setting out to estabish a monopoly of educational benefit. That is what far too many of us have argued for in education debates in the past.
This is not the first occasion, and it will not be the last, on which the House has debated the question of the compulsory period of education. Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) introduced a Ten-Minute Bill, the purposes of which I totally agreed with, although I might, as the hon.

Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) indicated, put it in a slightly different way.
Last week's debate on education also raised the question of the compulsory period of education. Between 1966 and 1970 I spoke in almost every major, and indeed some of the minor, education debates in the House as education spokesman for my party. With my party, I took the view that raising the school leaving age eventually must be right. I do not want to say "I told you so", but I asked a large number of questions, and was almost alone in doing so, about whether, through our curriculum, teacher supply and buildings supply, we would be ready in time for the raising of the school leaving age.
Secondly, I suggested that raising the leaving age had become a kind of radical flag among educationists and politicians. One had to wave it, whether one believed in it or not, because otherwise one would be thought to be—

Miss Janet Fookes: Reactionary.

Mr. Pardoe: —reactionary or regressive. I remember having an argument about this question with the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, who was then the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth. I questioned whether the Conservative Party was doing a good service to the country by advocating this piece of so-called progress.
The trouble with Secretaries of State for Education—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will admit this—is that they all want to be remembered for something which they have done in education, and the only thing which history can recall is not an advance in the quality of education but some statistical device by which they can measure the quantity of it. Therefore, if they can create or improve primary schools, or get rid of the pre-1903—why 1903 I know not—primary schools and develop pre-primary education, or add a year to the compulsory period of education, their names will be written in the history books. It is utter nonsense, because none of this ever adds, or has ever added, to the quality of education.
Thirdly, I wondered whether the teachers could cope. We have had many illustrations today showing that teachers are finding it increasingly difficult to


cope with the problems which raising the leaving age has imposed on them.
Fourthly, I argued—I make no point about this now—that we were spreading our educational resources too thin. If we could find all the money needed for primary and nursery schools and the splendid reorganisation of secondary organisation which I was pressing the Labour Government to speed up, all would be well. But I knew that we could not, and therefore raising the school leaving age was very near the bottom of my first league of educational priorities.
I must admit, however, that I hesitated even then to follow the logic of those arguments. partly because I thought that my own education might have warped my judgment. I was educated from just over five years of age to 19 years of age—a very long compulsory period of education—and then went to university for three years. As I hated almost every minute at school, with the exception of one term, I supposed that it must have had a warping effect on my judgment. I therefore hesitated to argue full-scale the case for cutting the period of compulsory education for the reasons we have heard advanced today.
I regarded more and more of education as a weapon of social engineering. I wanted equality of opportunity. I still do. If we could add one jot or tittle to the average education of the average child, we should be doing something far better than adding an extra cubit to the education of the high flyer or the élite. I expressed those views in the House at the time. I settled inevitably for what was the consensus wisdom of the educational establishment. I did not ease to be a sceptic about the benevolent influence of long-term education—compulsory, caged education—but I was a benevolent sceptic. I believed that it was a good thing. I also believed, however, that we should perhaps postpone raising the age until we had enough money to do it properly.
Since then, two things basically have happened, apart from the fact that the age has been raised. First, I have witnessed my children's educational progress, and I am convinced by their experience that my experience was not unique and was not entirely irrelevant to the problem.

As a pupil, I was very sceptical about the benefits of school. As a parent, I am a darned sight more sceptical of the benefits of school, and so, I trust, are my children; indeed, I believe that they are.
The second thing that happened—as occasionally happens to open-minded hon. Members—was that I read one of those books which change the course of civilisation. The book I read was by Ivan Illich. I am amazed that his name and that of Reimer have not been mentioned in the debate. The book is a furiously subversive one—a point confirmed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) when he reviewed the book for that respectable Left-wing journal the New Statesman.
That brings me to the irrelevance of the Left-Right argument which has been brought out in the debate. There are on the Government benches hon. Gentlemen who are sceptical about the benefits of more and more schooling, and there are hon. Members on the Opposition benches with some scepticism about the full-blown benefits of accepting the motion. Where do Illich and Reimer stand in the Left-Right argument? Where does Karl Marx stand when one discovers, for instance, that he opposed the Gotha programme for the discontinuance of the employment of child workers in factories because it would have a deleterious effect on the education which they received at work and which was better than the education they would receive at school?
Certain other questions arise. I did National Service and hated having to do it. I detested the idea that society should force me to do two years' compulsory military service. Yet the hon. Members who would oppose with their dying breath the introduction of conscription at 18, or even a social service type of conscription, seem to think that by forcing boys and girls of 16 into school they are benefiting both the pupils and society.
What about other countries? Our period of compulsory education is way ahead of that in most of the major industrialised countries. Most of them extend the compulsory period to nine years, and some of the poorer nations cut it short well below that. Why do we in this country insist on children going to school from between the ages of five and 16 when the USSR, New Zealand, Sweden


and a host of other countries do not find it necessary?
What about public opinion? My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely last week introduced a Private Member's Bill. Since then he has received a large postbag on the subject. Of the 300 or more letters he has received since the debate was reported in the Press, not one was opposed to my hon. Friend's viewpoint. I do not find that surprising. I do not necessarily accept it as an argument in its favour, but if we are to argue against the consensus of public opinion which is against raising the school leaving age, it might be helpful if we were to advance certain reasons for doing so. I doubt whether we have such reasons.
As I said, Illich's book is a furiously subversive one. It challenges all our received notions and most of the traditions for which we have stood in education over a long period. In that book Illich makes the case against compulsory schooling. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West in his review of Reimer's "School is Dead" said that
The case against universal compulsory schooling is a substantial one".
The words of his book indicate Illich's views better than I can. Referring to himself and Reimer he said:
Together we have come to realise that for most men the right to learn is curtailed by the obligation to attend school.
Marvellous! That is exactly what I felt at 16, 15, 14, 13 and backwards through the whole of my school career. Was I wrong? I do not believe that I was.
Again, from the book:
Universal education through schooling is not feasible.
do not believe that it is.
The mere existence of school discourages and disables the poor from taking control of their own learning. All over the world the school has an anti-educational effect on society.
Hear, hear, again. There is no need to go on.

Mr. George Cunningham: What is the hon. Gentleman's policy?

Mr. Pardoe: Here is a man of stupendous intellect, of deep learning and insight who operates probably from the

Left of the political spectrum. These are infinitely wise words. What do we do about it?

Miss Fookes: May I ask what is the hon. Gentleman's practical alternative to schooling and whether what he is saying represents official Liberal policy?

Mr. Pardoe: I must come back to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West who said that he was glad that the Liberal Party had a new spokesman on education. I hastily say that I am not the spokesman on education. It would be incredible if, every time an hon. Member introduced a new idea into the House, he was howled down by hon. Members who said "Either you speak for your party or you do not speak at all". That would be an idiocy. What a damn-fool place this would become if that were so.
I will come to the proposals for dealing with this critique. Where do we go from here? What has been said about grants for parents whose children stay on at school is immensely important. I argued in favour of this between 1966 and 1970 as part of Liberal policy. Some 12 years ago the Liberal Party came out in favour of bribing parents as a means of encouraging children to stay on at school voluntarily. That would make it financially possible for parents to encourage their children to stay on and would involve the paying of enhanced family allowances to parents who allowed their children to stay on in full-time education.
According to a pamphlet which has recently been written by Alec Peterson, we should consider the possibility of paying the mothers of younger children for looking after their children rather than sending them to school. I see no reason why that should not be done.
We must have a commitment to lifetime education by means of what Illich calls "edu-credit". We should all of us when we are born be entitled to a period of schooling which we should be able to take at any time in our lives. We should not have to take it in the academies of the pedagogues. I am not here to support the monopoly of the teaching profession, which has done badly enough over the years. If we moved to that kind of system and allowed the child to opt for a full-time or part-time period of education we could give him a credit for the money required and say "You


can spend it at any time in your lifetime". By doing that we should be doing something immeasurably important for the enhancement of the real quality of education in our society. I shall support the motion. I do not accept all that has been said on behalf of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) but I am convinced that school is dead and I am delighted to say "To hell with school".

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind that the debate finishes at seven o'clock and that they will be reasonably brief.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Davies: I have been interested in the contributions to this debate and particularly in the speech made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). I was under the impression that the person who contributed most to the rather tenuous and limited philosophy of liberalism was John Stuart Mill and that he accepted education as one of the features of society which should be imposed on children. I thought that Mill would have argued strongly in favour of the point made by the hon. Gentleman that "edu-credits" should be given to children, but that he would have taken the view that the first priority should be to ensure that students should be in a position to be able to put a value on such credits. There is an implication of a compulsory nature which Mill recognised and which many Labour Members would appreciate, although now apparently members of the Liberal Party believe that school is dead.
I do not think school is dead. What school needs is radical change. We have heard today about the necessity for flexibility in educational institutions. I am prepared to take at face value the words of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North stressing his great concern for equality and for fairness in society in the treatment of individuals. How does the hon. Gentleman face up to the present situation? Where we have taken responsibility away from school for the education of our young people, that responsibility has been reneged upon. If leaders of industry and major organisations which employ young

people and if a whole range of social institutions were eager and willing to support a flexible arrangement in education, if we had seen a mass drive towards the concept of day release for students so that they could enjoy the twin benefits of work and education, then we might be able to accept the argument a little more readily. But we have seen such concepts reneged upon. Instead of day release having been increased, it has decreased over the last decade.
We are facing a situation in which the criticism of the school as an institution has been expressed in a negative way, as we have seen from this debate this afternoon. We have the right to ask whether what is being posed is the stark alternative of school or nothing or whether, sooner or later, measures must be propounded further to extend education beyond the present compulsory framework. Unless this argument is pursued and established, nobody in the House should support the motion moved by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). We must ask whether anything is gained by the motion or whether its supporters seek to jump on the bandwagon of the difficulties posed by substantial reform in terms of the school leaving age in its first year of operation.
We must recognise that many hon. Members who are taking part in this debate have enjoyed the benefits of extensive education. However much hon. Members may cast aspersions on the situation, I maintain that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is in a small minority when he argues that he feels few reservations about a situation in which his own children are leaving school at the age of 15. It may be that my hon. Friend has exceptional children who, despite that educational disadvantage, will be fully capable of enjoying a substantial position in society and a high standard of living. It may be that my hon. Friend is right to say that schools do more harm than good, but I maintain that for the vast majority of us the case is not proven. The majority of people are concerned to see that our children enjoy the benefits of further and higher education.
No doubt on another occasion many hon. Members will take the opportunity to argue for an extension of resources in


educational terms. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North said that he was in favour of the extension of grants to children who stay on at school. That is a fair point, but the problem is that we are in the process of saying that the nation should provide resources for those who have successfully been through the educational hoops. Once more the channelling of resources will go to the best intellects and those who have succeeded on the basis of the necessary examinations within the compulsory framework of education.
Education is not merely a question of adequately fitting people into society. If it were said that the best system was that which ensured that those who should benefit from education were those who had the right to do so by their intellectual pre-eminence, I know that many Labour Members would reject that proposition. Our concept of education ranges rather more widely in terms of the individuals than merely slotting somebody into his or her rôle in society.
We also know that the system is inefficient. We know that the real criterion for enjoying the substantial benefits of State provision beyond the compulsory school leaving age is that which accrues to those who are at a social advantage, and therefore we have a situation in which we increase the discrepancies and inequalities in the society which we have inherited. It has been denied in the debate that the extension of the school leaving age contains an egalitarian element. But the fact is that more than 60 per cent. of students who stay on beyond the age of 15 live in the South. East of England, whereas only 40 per cent. live in the North-East. This is support for my argument that we face a socially divisive situation.
The definition of resources necessary to introduce ROSLA has meant that the beneficiaries of the situation have been proportionately more in our socially deprived areas than in the more advanced areas. In that sense it has been an egalitarian measure. It could be argued that other measures would be better suited to the objective of seeking to ensure that society provided resources on a better basis for the education of our schoolchildren. I do not know of a single reform proposal by either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party which

more clearly channels the increase in resources to the socially educationally deprived than does ROSLA.
The fact that schools are under strain is well recognised in all parts of the House. It is also recognised that we have to think of compulsory education as lying within a more flexible framework than has been the situation in the past. Educacational needs are not necessarily met in orthodox schools which involve classes of 30 to 40 sitting in serried ranks. Perhaps our schools do not present the right pattern at the moment. In the educational authorities which have produced the most advanced educational reforms and initiatives there are no ROSLA children. The curriculum is structured on a basis of educational experience which does not take into account merely the last-year situation. Many have argued that the educational system must become much more aware of what is going on in the outside world and be more responsive to that situation. Even better, during the last year in a school we should seek in the curriculum to break down the rigidities of school education. But it is a very different matter to argue that we should seek to destroy school and thus stop providing children with the very best that can he given to them in educational terms in our society.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I intervene briefly at this point on this Private Members' day. The fact that there are so many hon. Members anxious to speak in this debate shows the very great interest that there is in education, since there are no Whips on today and we have a heavy week ahead of us.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) on choosing education for discussion today, and this subject in particular. It is a difficult and thorny subject which is better raised from the back benches because hon. Members on the back benches can speak much more freely without the limitations imposed on those who speak from the Front Benches and who must be careful lest they inadvertently commit their parties to policies which those parties may not have espoused.
I want also to congratulate my hon. Friend on the skill with which he presented his case, the moderate and well-informed way he argued it, and on how he picked his way carefully through a minefield which might have exploded at any moment. The nearest that it came to an explosion was when the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) took exception to my hon. Friend's reference to working on a farm. That was too graphic for the hon. Gentleman, apparently. However, when my hon. Friend referred to the scale and use of resources, that was too abstract for the hon. Member for Lewisham, West. Perhaps I might say to the hon. Gentleman that one can in fact learn things on a farm and that, although I may now look a regrettably urban figure, I have learned more things on farms in the past than anywhere else in my prolonged education.
I welcome the opportunity to make my own position and that of the official Opposition clear. Last week I spoke about the need to preserve good schools, and it was the Secretary of State himself who described me on that occasion as "a Right-wing reactionary". I am more used to being denounced by some of my own colleagues as "a Left-wing deviationist". But, before I succumb to an identity crisis, let me make my own position clear on education matters. I stand in the extreme centre, and that is always a good place to stand in order to see best what is going on. I think that that is the atmosphere of educational discussion today. I hope that we have moved away from dogmatic, doctrinaire positions and want to see what is happening in our schools.
That at any rate is the posture of the Opposition. We want to take a close, hard look at the facts, to see the shortcomings of our education system as well as the achievements, and to shape our policies accordingly.
As all of us must be aware, the dissatisfaction amongst parents and teachers about many effects of raising the school leaving age is strong. I am not saying that these complaints are always right. But they are there. The concern and the anxiety is very real.
There is the further underlying difficulty which we must face that the school leaving age has been raised just at the

time when the age of maturity everywhere else is being lowered. We have a younger marriage age and a younger age of general maturity. We are asking this generation to do something which is very difficult—to stay at school longer when the whole movement of society is in the opposite direction. We must be prepared to see that this will cause difficulties, and we must also be prepared to see how we can solve them.
I hope that we can respond to this challenge by getting away from the extremes of complacency which some Government supporters have shown and away also from the insensitivity which has been shown in particular by the former Liberal spokesman on education, the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), in that very unfortunate speech the other day. It contained a passage which I am sure that we all remember about youth being let out on to the labour market as though they were cattle being let out of a pen. We cannot discuss this, very sensitive and important subject in that tone of voice, and I hope that we all appreciate the genuine feeling which exists in every part of the House, especially on the Government benches, about the disadvantaged child from the poor area who should not be deprived of a benefit which has only been obtained after many years of struggle.
There are different views in the Conservative Party on this subject, of course. That is to be expected. Like the Church of England, the Conservative Party is a comprehensive institution. That is the reason why it has survived for so long. We can comprehend different views in it. But the official party position is, first, that we accept the principle that the school leaving age should be 16, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who can lay some claim to rank among the great post-war Secretaries of State for Education, brought it about. It had been talked about since 1938. It fell to her to translate it into reality. We shall not go back upon that.
Second, we believe that the application of the 16-year rule should be made more flexible to take into account the changed conditions and the original purpose of the reform. That was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson). We must ask ourselves what this reform was intended to do. It was


intended to create new opportunities, and the question we must ask ourselves today is whether the right opportunities are being created.
We have heard a number of suggestions made in the debate, and I want to consider them constructively. First, we had the suggestion in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby about what I may call the dispensing power—that the local education authority or the head teacher should have power to dispense a child so that he may leave school after his fifteenth birthday. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that suggestion was put forward by no less a person than Lord Crowther, supported by eight members of his advisory committee. Linked with that suggestion is that, subject to day release or evening classes, there should be release from school.
Although that, too, merits serious consideration, I think that it goes rather too far. It has been put forward by a number of people. It was put forward in this debate. It was put forward earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). It has also been espoused by Mr. Peter Wilby in The Observer. That very distinguished education correspondent lent it his support last week. Nevertheless I do not think that it is right. I believe that it would obliterate the line between education and employment. We should have to discuss it very much further before it could be accepted.
I put forward three suggestions to the Under-Secretary, and I hope that he will deal with them. The first concerns the creation of educational and vocational alternatives to formal school, and it links with what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said in his thoughtful speech about the difference between education and attendance at school.
At the moment, it is not possible for any child under the age of 16 to leave school to take up an apprenticeship or any kind of technical education in a college of further education. I remember very well Circular 7/74 on work experience. It was issued when I was a Minister. That makes it possible for children to take part in work experience schemes while they are still at school. These provide the opportunity to sample a variety of types of work rather than starting those concerned on any definite sub-apprenticeship course. Those concerned

do not receive any pay, although they may receive the cost of fares and meals from their employers. I think that this was the point being made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who talked about activities within the school. The same point was also made by the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies).
With respect to those hon. Members, they do not go far enough. We want to extend the principle. We believe that it should be made possible for children who wish to do so to take up apprenticeships or some kind of technical training after they are 15 years old. This might encounter some initial resistance from colleges of further education. But they will not be gaining something entirely new; they will merely be regaining an age group which they have only recently lost. During their first year at such a college pupils would have the option of returning to school, if they wish, at any time.
Experience in France, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, is relevant. The school leaving age there is 16. Children in France have the option of leaving school at 14 to go to a College technique where they may have a full-time technical training for two years. Children between the ages of 14 and 16 may leave school to take up apprenticeships, subject to attending school for 360 hours a year during that time. The contract for such apprenticeships is three-way, being drawn up between parents, employers and education officers. I recommend that idea to the Under-Secretary.
Secondly, let us have a more flexible leaving date. At the moment children may leave school, according to their age, on one of two dates. Those whose 16th birthday falls between 1st September and 31st January can leave at the end of the Easter term. Those whose 16th birthday falls between 1st February and 31st August may leave at the end of the summer term. The date for the end of the school term varies throughout the country from the end of June to the end of July.
There are two main possibilities of increasing flexibility here. First, we could make it possible for those whose 16th birthday falls between 1st February and the end of the Easter term to leave at


the end of that term rather than to stay at school possibly through to the end of July.
The argument against that proposal is that it would possibly reduce the incentive to take the CSE examinations. Therefore, I recommend rather more strongly the alternative of making it possible for children to leave school after the CSE or the particular examinations that they are taking are over. The period of examinations may spread over several weeks.
The date of the CSE examinations varies between different examining bodies. However, I am informed by the Department of Education and Science—so it must be true—that two-thirds have CSE examinations arranged for May and one-third for June. Therefore, it may be possible that in some areas children take their examinations in May and in theory cannot leave for another two months.
Neither Section 35 of the Education Act 1944 nor the order raising the school leaving age appears to give the Secretary of State any powers to make the leaving age more flexible. I suggest that if those powers were sought from the House they would be granted.
The third possibility that I recommend is employment in the Services. The position of those in the Services was the one area where flexibility about the leaving age used to exist, since Section 115 of the Education Act 1944 specifically excluded them from the provisions of the Act.
Administrative memoranda issued in 1948 and 1952 described the conditions in which a certificate could be issued under Section 115 to permit young persons below the then compulsory school age of 15 to be employed by the Crown. This last memorandum was withdrawn on 22nd May 1972 in conjunction with the raising of the school leaving age. Therefore, the Armed Forces can no longer recruit young persons under 16 years of age. The ending of what was known as the junior "U" entry scheme, which was formerly for those under 15¾ years of age, has inevitably meant a drop in Service recruiting. In 1972–73 there were 2,182 in this category, which no longer exists. I am sure that the Ministry of Defence would be glad to see the restoration of under-16 entrants and would make

arrangements for their continuing a formal education in the Services.

Mr. Peter Rees: Does my hon. Friend agree—perhaps he could transmit this to the Government—that the standard of education provided by the Junior Leaders Training Regiment is comparable to that provided in many schools so that, in effect, young people are not giving up any educational opportunities if they join the Services through that route?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Facilities can also be made available for taking O-levels. That is apart from other military colleges which provide a higher form of education.
I believe that if the Under-Secretary of State could prevail upon his right hon. Friend to bring about these three changes the situation would be materially improved. He would not only keep intact the principle of education up to the age of 16, which is the general will of the House, and make it more flexible and reasonable in practice, but do much to meet the anxieties of parents and teachers and at the same time protect the educational opportunities which have rightly been opened up for the disadvantaged child and the child who may be exposed to pressures, whether from parents or society, to discontinue his schooling.
This is not an easy problem to solve, but I am sure that there is room for constructive action by the Government in this sphere. I believe that the debate has had a useful clarifying effect on the minds of those of us who are considering the issues. I hope that it will also have the effect of clarifying the mind and opinion of the nation.

5.46 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I hope that the House will feel that this is an opportune time for me to put forward some of the Government's reactions to the comments that we have heard this afternoon about this subject, which is of first importance.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) on his good fortune in coming first in the Ballot and on the way in which he has introduced this vital topic.
There is great uncertainty and unrest in various circles throughout the country about the effects of raising the school leaving age, and I am glad of this opportunity to make known the Government's reactions to some of the constructive suggestions that have been put forward.
The debate has been wide-ranging. My sympathies went out to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) who seems to have had a most unhappy childhood. He was miserable at school, had a terrible time at university, and then had two years of bitterness in his National Service. However, I hope that he is now enjoying himself in the House.
I felt that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) was going to launch some in-Service training. a new back-to-nature series on the farm. and so on, but the House was denied that kind of introduction.
There are those of us who have always supported the raising of the school leaving age and the lengthening of the school life. I suppose that I should declare an interest. I have been in the education service all my working life. I have been a teacher, a headmaster, the chairman of an education authority, and now I am at the Department of Education and Science.
I have always regarded the lengthening of the school life as a step towards providing equality of opportunity for all our children. That is an essential part of our educational philosophy. I assure the House that there is no question of complacency or of trying to brush problems under the carpet. All the constructive suggestions that have been made today will be carefully considered.
I will deal with some of the proposals that have been put forward, including the three suggestions by the hon. Member for Chelmsford.
We are now drawing near to the end of the first full year of the raising of the school leaving age to 16 years. I was interested in the article referred to by the hon. Gentleman in which Mr. Peter Wilby came to the conclusion that the school leaving age should be lowered. He suggested that nobody could guarantee that the proposals he was making would be the answer, so he proposed a five-year

trial period. I suggest that, rather than amending something and having a five-year trial period to try out the new proposal, we should give the thing that we are amending a little longer than two terms before either approving or condemning it. This is the first year. Children who would have stayed at school until Easter 1973 stayed until Easter 1974, and those who might have left last summer will stay at school until this summer. I suggest to the House that it is too early to come to any firm conclusions.
There are two problems to which reference has been made. The hon. Member for Blaby referred to the need for flexibility in the leaving date, and it was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Chelmsford. The second problem is the imposition of an extra year at school on reluctant pupils.
It is true that legislation would be needed to make any change in the school leaving date, but we have consulted local authorities and teachers' organisations and we are now considering the replies that we have received. There seems to be some support for the idea put forward by the hon. Member for Chelmsford that once the examination period is over it might be better to allow children to leave school rather than continue with the present arrangement. That would mean a leaving date of, say, 15th June, but I assure the House that we have an open mind on the matter and that once we have received all the replies we shall consider whether legislation ought to be brought forward to deal with this issue.
Reference has been made to the possibility of allowing children to leave school at 15 to enter a Forces training establishment. In reply to a Question I said what I think sums up our attitude to this important matter. My answer was:
The Service training establishments do not and are not intended to provide a basic education. While the Government are concerned about recruitment, we think that 15 is too early an age to choose a career with the marked degree of commitment required by the Armed Services. We stand very much by the idea that every child has a right to five years of secondary education."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd April 1974; Vol. 871, c. 1084.]
Those is not closing all the doors. We are willing to review those statements, but, having read them again. I am of the


opinion that they show how wise I was when I gave that reply.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: My hon. Friend says that he stands by his statement that every child should have a right to five years of secondary education, but not all children are getting that. Some children are receiving only 4½or 4⅔ years of secondary education and leaving school at Easter. Does my hon. Friend not agree that there should be one leaving date? If the school leaving date were 1st June, that would do what my hon. Friend says the Government want to do.

Mr. Armstrong: There is strong educational opinion in support of my hon. Friend's view that if we are to have secondary education for all and a full secondary education course we must move towards having one leaving date, but, as my hon. Friend and the House will realise, there are problems connected with that step.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On the question of the Forces recruiting young people aged 15—a matter on which I have pressed successive Governments—may I ask the hon. Gentleman to take on board the fact that the degree of commitment is limited, because a boy who went into the Forces at 15 could, under the Donovan arrangements, be released at 18 if he found that he did not like the life?

Mr. Armstrong: I realise that. Our approach is more the educational one, although we are, of course, concerned about youngsters having to make a choice too early in their lives. I take on board what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. Peter Rees: rose—

Mr. Armstrong: I am sorry, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has not been here all afternoon and I do not want to take up too much time of a Private Members' debate by giving way.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to a Private Member whose day it is?

Mr. Armstrong: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman wants to make his fourth speech.

Mr. Lawson: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the age at which people should be able to make a choice, whether it is for a career or for anything else, may I ask whether he is satisfied with the arrangement that someone is able to choose to get married at a lower age than that at which he can leave school?

Mr. Armstrong: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, he will find that I shall deal with all these problems as I make my way through my speech.
Provision to raise the school leaving age was made in the 1944 Act. The decision to do so was announced in 1964, and the intention to raise the age was stated firmly in 1971. Ample time was provided for the necessary preparations to be carried out, in contradistinction to what happened when the leaving age was raised in 1947. I am told that when the late Ellen Wilkinson announced the raising of the leaving age in 1947 the preparation consisted of the requisitioning, through the Ministry of Works, of 6,000 hutted classrooms. Nevertheless, despite the problems, the education service of that day coped, and in time the new arrangement became part of the normal practice.
I am not suggesting that the decision to raise the leaving age and what has happened during the last nine months have not presented great problems, but I must remind the House that £100 million of capital investment was allocated in 1969. The Schools Council has sponsored and stimulated curricula development with the needs of the school leaving age in mind, and linked courses—this is taking place in many authorities—involving attendance at further education colleges on one or two days a week are in operation.
Teachers must be given time to acquire experience in the building up of courses of interest and relevance to young people, and the media, aided and abetted by those who should know better, have highlighted and exaggerated isolated incidents. For every example of school breakdown I could produce evidence to show that, even in inadequate buildings, teachers are succeeding because the curriculum, the methods of teaching and learning, the corporate life of the school and school contact with outside communities have been adjusted and made relevant to young


people compelled to stay an extra year in school.
I refuse to beat a hasty retreat from the principles so widely espoused by teachers, parents, politicians, church leaders and everybody who is concerned about our young folk and wants to give them a proper opportunity. Of course there are anxieties and real difficulties, but I want to place on record this afternoon something that we are far too hesitant to do. I pay tribute to teachers and their schools who are quietly accepting the challenge and bringing great benefit to the whole range of pupils within their care.
The hon. Member for Blaby says that the legislation has done more harm than good. All I can say is that he knows nothing about the North-East of England. I know boys and girls who would now be out in the adult world, some earning their living but some unable to find employment, but who, because of the change, are still at school and are profiting and developing their intellect and personality. To talk about the change doing more harm than good is to show an ignorance of the real situation.
We do not hear or read as much about the schools that are successful, but their invaluable contribution should not go unregarded. My anxiety is that, because of the economic situation that we inherited, we are not able to provide all the resources which those schools need and deserve.
We have heard a lot about Crowther, but Newsom dealt with most of the children of whom we are talking, the reluctant learners. It is interesting that the Newsom Report recommended that there was no doubt about the school leaving age having to be raised to cater for those children who were reluctant learners; but, said the report, education ought to be school-based. The report said that these children should get work experience and that we should be flexible in our approach, but it came down heavily on the side of education being school-based.
I want to be flexible in my approach, but I am not anxious to follow the hon. Member for Blaby into saying that when somebody wants to take up an apprenticeship he should be allowed to leave the education service. I would change the

emphasis in Newsom from "school-based" to "education service-based". We are much more likely to get the result we want if the education service is given the responsibility, and if children can be released either for a number of days in a week or for weeks at a time, but released from industry to education rather than putting the onus on industry.
There are many of us in this House who believed that the Industrial Training Act and the great advances that were made in that direction would mean that more and more of our youngsters would get an opportunity for day release and the like. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) reminded the House, almost the reverse has been the case. I accept that there are some children who would do better in another kind of institution—in colleges of further education and so on—and, therefore, I am not wedded to the normal school organisation, but I believe that it is in the interests of our children that they should be under the umbrella of the education service.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the 1973 Act which enables authorities to arrange or approve work experience schemes for this age group which we are discussing. We sometimes underestimate the amount of exciting work that is being done. I was reading the other day about the Birmingham Education Development Centre, which has produced a document called "Challenge and Change". This document gives an account of the work of 150 teachers who have produced a complete course of secondary education for children up to the age of 16.
We talk far too much about the extra year. I could take hon. Members to a school in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is a big comprehensive school, and children at the age of 13-plus attend a careers convention. There, a great range of industries, including public services, display their wares. The object is to interest children and parents in a broad educational course leading to some kind of employment, and the children are attracted to a three-year course. It is not something which is tacked on for the 15 years-of-age group; it is a three-year course, and up to 80 per cent. of the children take advantage of it. Indeed, they did so even before the raising of


the school leaving age. That is the kind of exciting approach which one sees throughout the country.
I admit that there are problems of truancy, indiscipline and, indeed, violence. I was interested to read in The Times Educational Supplement an
account of an iterview with eight headmasters in London who said that there was not the violence in schools such as existed in the "Teddy boy" age. Nevertheless there are incidents which worry us all, although this has not suddenly arisen. Nor is it likely to be solved overnight.
I was reading yesterday in a newspaper that according to a report for 1971–72 the number of 10 to 14 year-olds convicted for malicious damage rose from 4,552 to 5,253, an increase of 15 per cent. Nobody could blame that on the raising of the school leaving age last year. This reflects the society in which we live. We live in a society in which indiscipline, mass emotion, aggression, violence and intolerance are all too evident. These elements are not confined to school pupils. It is hardly surprising that some reflections of attitudes and behaviour in adult society are also found in schools.
The truth is that teaching is becoming more and more demanding. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) in wanting to see the spread of democracy. But democracy brings extra responsibility. It is much more difficult to organise. I can remember that when the miners were having a dispute in my county of Durham, Sam Watson, the miners' agent, would ring up the local secretary and say "Get them back to work and I will talk to them." He would do the negotiating and he would say "There you are, lads; that's it." But today people say "I am not going to have other people making decisions for me." In the whole area of social democracy that is what we are trying to do. We have got to try to inculcate those attitudes in our schools, and this is what is making teaching much more demanding.
Sometimes I think it would be great to go back to the old authority. But authority has now been supplemented or even succeeded by persuasion, and it is much more difficult to persuade than to compel. We must decide how we are

to deal with the problems which such changes have created. The Department is monitoring the effect of ROSLA on behaviour and absence from schools, and we shall discuss the findings with local education authorities and teachers. We have to recognise that the way in which we have organised our schools has made a direct contribution to some of the problems which now confront our teachers.
Which children would come into the category defined by the hon. Member for Blaby—those pupils whose best interests would be served by leaving at 15? They are those whom we identify in the main as having limited ability and aptitude and who are able to make very little progress in a limited field. Newsom in 1963 came to the conclusion, from research, that the less able pupils were likely to be away from schools for longer periods and more often without adequate excuse. That was 11 years ago. The truth is that their whole education background is not conducive to success. Most of these children have been labelled failures from their infant school stage. When the time comes for transfer to secondary school, they are allocated to schools, or even in so-called comprehensive schools to courses, which do not lead to any kind of examination. So they are labelled failures again. It is no wonder they are antagonistic and rebellious about the discipline and work at schools. They are misfits in a school community which is geared to meet the needs of examinations. Some of them become drop-outs.
The truth is that we have many children in our schools who have never dropped in. They have been deprived and underprivileged since they started school. I would be surprised if they did not want to escape from the ordered and disciplined community into the exciting adult world outside where they can be people in their own right. We have offered little in school to excite and interest them.
However, when my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West says that they regard school as gaol where they are imprisoned from 9 till 4 o'clock, I ask my hon. Friend "Where do they go when they leave school?" They go into a job starting at 8 a.m. and finishing at 5 p.m., in far less congenial circumstances than in the worst of our schools. If they do not do that, they go to dead-end jobs and drift from place to place. This is


the real problem and there is no easy answer.
It is a sad comment that the best of our secondary modern schools—whenever Conservative Members praise them it is always as good places for other people's children—are those which have most successfully aped the grammar schools. In 1945, we believed that a school should provide a challenging and exciting background for those who did not want to pursue and were not adopted to pursuing an academic course.
Supposing we accepted the motion on the ground that those children are such a nuisance that they are preventing others who might do so from benefiting from their education. Once one concedes that the age should be 15, imagine the pressures on head teachers, staff, society and those children who for many reasons want to get away from school but are persuaded by their parents to stay on. As a headmaster, when I talked to parents, I discovered another change in society. When I was at school, no parent would have said "My 14-year-old must make up his own mind." Now, of course, it often is the child's decision.
Knowing the harsh world into which these children are turned out, is it to be said that a 14-year-old is mature enough to make that decision? Such children leave in a rebellious and antagonistic mood and are plunged into a harsh, competitive and unfriendly world. We are not talking about the good apprentices, those who will eagerly take up further education or even vocational training. The children we are concerned about have escaped from compulsion, order and discipline and so they drift and will not touch any formal education or training with a barge pole. Hon. Members talk glibly of vouchers with which they can come back to education, but there are many children who are headlined in the newspapers now who will never come back to the system of their own accord.
Somehow we have to provide the right atmosphere in education while they are there and while they are young. If we cannot do it when they are 13, 14 and 15, we have precious little chance when they are 19, 20 and 21. Does the House believe that what schools fail to do modern industry and further education can accomplish?
No one claims that the recalcitrant and reluctant minority referred to by the hon. Member for Blaby are equipped to be pushed into adult society before the majority of their colleagues. I share the proper anxiety about the standards of literacy today and the attitude of some of the more troublesome young people, but I ask whether those young people, with the right educational help, can achieve more than they are achieving now. I believe that the answer is "Yes" and it is the Government's job and the job of the education service to provide that help.
We take it for granted as a nation that the very gifted children and those who are most handicapped must stay at school to 16. We owe it to our young citizens to make sure that all of them, but especially those who are underprivileged—yes, those who are misfits, often through no fault of their own—should have access to well-qualified, skilled teachers in schools with good facilities, so that personal development can go ahead. I cannot contemplate throwing those children into a world which is uncertain, complex and often frightening in the choices that it offers young people.
Education cannot perform all the miracles, it cannot achieve maturity for all our children on its own, but it has a vital contribution to make. To be a partner in that process is one of the most worthwhile pursuits. There are thousands of teachers meeting this challenge and I call upon the House to give full support to those who are determined to overcome the real problems facing the education service, so that every child can develop his full potential. The Government are determined to find the resources to enable professional teachers to do the job of bringing our children to maturity.

6.15 p.m.

Miss Janet Fookes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) on his choice of subject, which has provided us with an invaluable opportunity for a preliminary stocktaking. I would not put it higher than that after one year's experience of the higher school leaving age.
When the age was raised, and in the discussions which took place beforehand, I took the view that it was right in principle because an adequate education for


young people was not possible without that extra year. I felt particularly strongly about the situation with respect to girls in education. In the past pressures have often been brought to bear on girls to leave school early, on the grounds that education did not matter so much, as they would get married—I need not go on; I think the argument is well known.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) to talk about "corralling" children—quite a Wild West allusion. There was also the great difficulty of children who were under parental pressure to leave. I did not come across that problem much in my own area in the South, but I know that in the North it was a far greater problem and had to be tackled. I felt that the pressures were too great for children to stay on voluntarily.
The only practical consideration which tempered my enthusiasm for this proposal was the feeling that resources were limited, that we were failing to tackle the problem at source and that we needed to give far greater care and attention to children in primary schools and even before they went to school. That is where the problems often start and where the children fall behind, so that, when they reach secondary school, they have fallen too far behind to take a great interest in that level of education.
I have to some extent modified my position now, but I would not go all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby in seeking simply to reduce the age and leave it at that. But it is no use shrugging off the difficulties produced by this first year. The raising of the age to 15 all those years ago was less difficult than the latest operation. One important reason is that the wages that teenagers can earn are vastly greater now, so the pressure to leave school is also greater. Teenagers have far more ambitious ideas about what to spend their money on, which also makes the desire to leave much greater.
It has also been pointed out that young people mature more quickly. This is certainly true of their physical and emotional development. The general feeling in the country and the emphasis in the television they watch all help to make

them mature more quickly—some of us would feel, perhaps too quickly. We cannot shrug off these difficulties.
I am glad that the Government are doing some research into truancy. At the moment, some hon. Members will not admit that there is a problem at all, while others tell hair-raising stories about the amount of truancy. I suspect that thorough research will reveal that this is very much a patchy business, and that there are great difficulties in some areas and practically none elsewhere. We shall not know until we have proper statistics. I hope that those who are responsible for making these investigations will not look simply at the numbers on roll when the register is taken early in the day, because it is easy enough—some youngsters are pretty shrewd—for youngsters to have themselves marked "in" at the beginning of the day and then quietly to slink away. Large schools provide better opportunities for that, if only because there are more doors out of which children can slip, and they can lose themselves in the general mêlée. I hope, therefore, that the arrangements made will take account of these practical difficulties.
There is also the question of the disruption of classes. I know from my teaching experience that if one has people in a class who do not want to be there they can cause a great deal of disruption. It has never been my misfortune to teach really unruly classes, but I assure hon. Members who have not taught that those who really do not want to learn make one feel like a rower doing his best against a very, very strong tide. I can well imagine that in the problem districts this is magnified to an extent that must make teachers want to shriek. I hope, therefore, that that aspect of teaching will not be underestimated.
Although I accept that all these difficulties exist, I still do not believe that all compulsory education should come to an end at the age of 15. That is where I part company from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby. I believe that it may well be necessary for children to continue with their education otherwise than at school. I thoroughly endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in his contribution from the Opposition Front Bench. It is not often


that I find myself so agreeably in agreement with my Front Bench, but some very important points were made by my hon. Friend.
I should particularly like to see children given the alternative of going to colleges of further education or technical colleges. When I was the chairman of an education committee, from time to time we had to deal, even at the age of 15, with children who simply were not fitting in at school and were making a thorough nuisance of themselves. It would have been an invaluable blessing if they could have gone to a different type of educational establishment. Technical colleges or colleges of further education are especially helpful because their atmosphere is so much more adult. The pupils are treated as students. That may well be what the youngsters are looking for. Perhaps they would not be pleased, but they would accept that they would not be earning if only they could be treated in a more adult atmosphere. I very much hope that the Under-Secretary will seriously examine this possibility as an alternative during the last year at school.
The point about entry into the Armed Forces is well worth pursuing. There are difficulties, but I would imagine that the Armed Services could modify their training, and so on, if they knew that they would get children in at a slightly earlier age. I should have thought that the commitment aspect could be modified to take account of that. I am sure that it is not like the law of the Medes and Persians; I am sure it can be altered. It is a solution well worthy of attention. Although the Under-Secretary said that he would look at the matter, I got the impression that he would not look at it very seriously. I ask him to reconsider that.
Finally, it would be well worth while to have a more flexible leaving date. I had this point suggested to me from two entirely different sources. The first suggestion came from the head and the staff of the upper echelon of a comprehensive school which had been a grammar school. There was and is in that school a strong academic tradition, but the staff felt that it was quite pointless to keep youngsters at school after they had taken their examinations. I see no point in dragooning youngsters at that stage in their

careers. Anyone who has gone through the examination stage will know the extraordinary feeling of relaxation that comes over one when examinations are finished. It is really flogging a dead horse to expect youngsters to remain at school after that point.
Another suggestion came from a totally different source—from motor traders in my constituency of Plymouth, Drake, and from the city of Plymouth and outside it. They pointed out that after the examinations it would be very useful for them to be able to take on school leavers on a pre-apprenticeship course. They felt that it would give youngsters the opportunity to do something useful and to find out whether they liked the motor trade and whether they wished to remain in it. If they did not wish to remain, they could then leave without wasting much time, but if they wished to remain in that trade they would be well on their way. I imagine that that point would be appropriate to a number of other trades and occupations. I hope that the Under-Secretary will seriously consider the question of a more flexible leaving date.
I hope that I have made it clear that in no way would I wish to see a lowering of the school leaving age take place in itself. All that I ask for is that we should use our imagination and enable those youngsters who do not wish to remain in school for the final year to have the opportunity of further training and education outside school. That does not mean that I would wish them simply to go into dead-end jobs. I still retain sufficient of the teaching instinct to deplore that idea, and I wish to dissociate myself entirely from hon. Members who wish to see that state of affairs return. But I hope and trust that the Under-Secretary will take on board some of the ideas that have been put to him so that we can improve educational standards and work for higher standards in the future.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The suggestion of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) that the motor traders of Plymouth might be in a good position to take some pupils at the end of June may be a good one, but I would hesitate to support such a suggestion because it may give them first


pick, or it may give first pick to the employers who may be able to do that—which would mean that others who could not do that might not be able to benefit. I shall not, therefore, follow the hon. Lady's argument in that respect.
However, I suspect that I have the support of the hon. Lady in not agreeing with the motion. While there are many things which are wrong, putting back the clock at this stage is not the best way to deal with them. I, too, like the hon. Lady, have some teaching instinct left. For 13 years, dealing with school leavers was my main concern, and but for the chances of selection as a parliamentary candidate it might still be. It is a coincidence that on 8th July 1970, at about this same date, this is what I said in the House:
There are indications that the difficulties which are caused by socially deprived, unhappy and maladjusted pupils are on the increase. One of the most frustrating and tragic aspects of the job which I am in the process of relinquishing is represented by the difficulties experienced by teachers through being faced by unhappy, sullen and inarticulate young people and the fact that, in the present structure, many teachers are not able to produce an educational response suited to their deepest needs.
The result is that a significant number of adolescents are leaving school today inadequately prepared for learning for themselves, which is one of the objects of the exercise. Indeed, it is the main purpose of it. They are leaving with bitterness and with a grudge against adult society."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July 1970; Vol. 803, c. 735.]
I then went on to talk about the emotional drain on teachers in the situation to which the hon. Lady referred.
I appreciate that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak, and so I shall go quickly through some suggestions which could help us to meet a situation which is acute in some inner city schools. It was bad in 1970 and may well be worse in certain schools today. We have got many of our educational priorities back to front because of our psychological inheritance. Secondary education before the war was, by and large, grammar school education. With the watershed of 1944 we have secondary education which is as good as grammar school education. To the Opposition good schools usually mean direct grant schools or selective schools, purely because the scholastic attainments of those schools are visibly better than

others. But good schools, good education—which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) ought to consider—and the right to learn are to be found in a good educational institution, and that does not mean an educational institution of high scholastic attainments. The two are not the same.
In the past 10 or 15 years in the development of secondary education, the emphasis, in the head's study, in education offices, and in the Department of Education and Science, has been psychologically oriented to scholastic and academic matters. The result has been that the needs of the "ordinary" schoolchild have not been met because the orientation has been built around those who are capable of dealing with academic work. There is proof of that fact in the allowance given for examination work. For over 13 years I tried to fight professionally against this trend, and because I was qualified to teach at university entrance I lost in the end. The whole of the psychological structure of the inspectorate and of the education authorities was that I could not discharge a responsibility to ordinary pupils because there was no promotional ladder which enabled me to do so. I fear that that attitude still exists in education, and it may be one reason why the raising of the school leaving age exercise is not going as well as it might.
Mention has been made of Newsom and what it dealt with, as well as Crowther, and in the end we have a number of values and priorities in education administration.
There is also a problem concerning school buildings. In my first year as a graduate teacher—1956—I taught in 19 rooms a week in a purpose-built comprehensive school. That went on for four or five years, until I got a room of my own. The Department of Education and Science lays down rules regarding school buildings. Those rules are supposed to be right, but I have argued with the Department's architects about this. They think they are right; I know they are wrong. We have not got proper place arrangements in secondary schools today to enable proper secondary education to be carried out. I do not know why the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is laughing. Does he think I am being too pessimistic? People at


the Department of Education and Science regarded themselves as experts and considered that they had consulted everybody on this matter, but if the hon. Gentleman goes to any secondary school head in this country he will get confirmation of the views that I am putting forward.
Another difficulty is that training has become divorced from the main stream of practical life inside schools. The inexperienced rather than the experienced teachers go into colleges of education, with the result that there has been a divorce of the two professions, and this has not been brought together despite the efforts made in that direction. Since then the whole educational world has been under assault from the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and the ranks have closed. This is one of the difficulties in education today.
Many teachers are getting out because they cannot cope. This is not because they are not well-trained—although that might be part of the trouble—but because of problems associated with getting young people into classrooms, and the matter of teaching practice, which has been falling down because it has not been oriented on what is the practical position and the reality of life in school.
Social trends have been mentioned in the debate. There have also been fashions in education. Ideas have been promoted from outside the profession. People have had good ideas, but they have not been able to put them into effect or see the results over a long period. It is no good people putting forward educational ideas unless they can be tried out for three or four years in appropriate conditions.
Many of the new ideas have worked because there has been enthusiasm. When the teacher is enthusiastic and there is a good rapport between pupils and teachers, education takes place. It can happen in the most reactionary circumstances, but the important thing is the relationship between the teacher and pupils, provided they work with enthusiasm.
I shall not weary the House by detailing all the gimmicks that have been introduced. There is the question of research in education and the position of the Schools Council. This has been

mentioned in a positive way. Many people in schools question whether more educational research should be superimposed upon them. Many of the things which have been suggested from this research would be impracticable in schools today. That is a basic as well as a difficult fact in schools today. What some people want to do in regard to basic education and learning criteria is administratively impossible for one reason or another.
There has also been a reference to primary schools. I challenge any Member of the House to say what he would do if he were teaching in a primary school with 35 pupils, or fewer, and two of the pupils decided to walk out. That is happening in many primary schools today. Many primary schoolchildren—we cannot always blame parents for this—are watching television until midnight. Through watching television six and seven-year-olds get a particular view of the world. Television forms the basis of certain principles. Some of us on this side of the House spoke against this matter when commercial television was introduced. Television programmes have changed during the past 10 years and some programmes give a view of the world which includes violence. Perhaps Members of the Opposition do not see commercial television, or any other television, as often as I do, but standards are now such that often there is violence first and discussion afterwards.
When Members of the Opposition say in the House that they are worried about various aspects of society today, perhaps they do not realise what young children of six and seven are seeing on television day after day, with the result that in primary school they will hit Johnny or Jane first and not worry about what the teacher may do, because they see so much violence on the television screen. What is shown on television may well contribute to problems in schools. If there is such a risk then I hope that the number of programmes of the type I have mentioned are reduced. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) would be serving the nation far better if he had a motion to that effect rather than that which we are discussing.
In introducing the motion, the hon. Member talked about what wise parents would wish for their children and said


that the whole nation should choose for all our children. I said at that time "Hear, hear"—which may have surprised hon. Members—because he was quoting R. H. Tawney, a man of great width of wisdom, a man perhaps above all responsible for secondary education today. I pointed out earlier in an intervention that we did not have secondary education in this country until 1944. In 1902 there was a political decision to deny universal secondary education. That caused trouble, the aftermath of which we are still clearing up.
We must orient to the classroom experience and a right to learn, which is an important objective—which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North should accept must be laid down. We must have this right to learn, as well as resources and qualified people. That is what school is. It is not the sort of social institution which members of the Opposition defend. There must be a proper educational standard of which scholastic standards are only a part—not necessarily the first priority. We have to safeguard standards of excellence, particularly in regard to literacy and the ability to be articulate and to communicate. That is what education is about. If we orient the classroom in this way and incorporate experience in proper circumstances, we can co-ordinate a secondary education course which lasts for about five years.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. George Gardiner: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) for the moderate terms in which he moved the motion. I am also grateful for the response it evoked from the Opposition Front Bench and for the reasoned speeches which have been made by Labour Members, too.
It should be clear by now that what we on the Opposition side are arguing is not that we should put the clock back in regard to the raising of the leaving age but that we should introduce a little more flexibility into its application. I subscribed to the principle of the raising of the leaving age, and I still broadly subscribe to it.
However, I recognise the sincerity of Ministers who do not wish to see that ideal compromised. My only regret is that tonight the Under-Secretary did not

go far enough in recognising that the application of the principle would be strengthened if only we could bring a little more flexibility into it to deal with rather more of the problem cases and areas. Our point is that it is the rigid application of the principle, and not the legislation itself, which in certain areas, for certain pupils and in certain schools, has done more harm than good.
I maintain that in assessing the question we must look at the totality of the crisis which is now looming in many schools. I accept the Under-Secretary's point that there is a danger in exaggerating. Therefore, I shall choose my words with care.
Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), I spent Friday in schools in my constituency discussing the whole spread of problems which are facing teachers today—not lust this one. I am in no doubt that in areas such as mine a crisis is approaching in our schools, arising from a dire shortage of suitably qualified teachers. This will affect the tuition of English and mathematics in a number of our schools this autumn. I also heard from one headmaster that he has spent so much time this summer seeking—unsuccessfully—replacements for the vacancies which are coming up in his school that he has not been able to devote anything like the amount of time that he should to his normal duties as headmaster.
There are many causes of this problem. Part of the problem lies in salaries. This is felt acutely in an area such as mine, which lies just outside the London weighting area. Part of the problem is the very high cost of housing in the South-East. These are problems which do not fall within the spread of the debate.
But there is also the problem of the conditions under which teachers must work. It is here that the difficulties arising from the raising of the leaving age are particularly relevant. We have already witnessed in some areas the growth of a stress syndrome on the teaching profession. I believe that this is spreading in its application. It is made up of many factors—teaching incomes, the staff shortage in itself, the burden which this places on other teachers, and various outside social factors, but also the problems which teachers encounter over teaching these unwilling ROSLAs, as the teachers rather unfortunately call them.


I do not believe that this stress is found just in the inner city areas. I fear that it is spreading, certainly to the areas around London, and for all I know it may be felt increasingly in other cities as well.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hillsborough sought to blame the media for exaggerating this problem. I know that there are those who will rush to any area where there appears to be a newsworthy or a sensational situation developing. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the media do not need to rush to propagandists in this case. They need only come to schools such as those in my constituency, and no doubt many others, to get the material which gives the substance to the programmes and the reportage that they have been presenting.
It is not much help to us to hear—though I am glad to hear it—that these problems are not general. We are very pleased that they are not general, and that other areas are not experiencing them, but that is not a reason for the media not concentrating our attention on the roots of the problem where it exists.

Mr. Flannery: I did not for one moment say that these problems did not exist. I said that not only the media but also hon. Members have grossly exaggerated the problems—that the problems are being faced up to by the teaching profession as best the profession can tackle them, and that we in the House should do everything to help the profession to grapple with the problems without exaggerating them and equipping certain sections of the media to make them worse still.

Mr. Gardiner: I take the broad point that the hon. Gentleman has made. I still think that it is unwise for him to appear at least to be criticising the media for concentrating some public attention on these problems where they exist. I hope that the hon. Member will not accuse hon. Members such as myself of exaggerating, when we have the evidence for it in our constituencies and, indeed, when teachers in our constituencies are the strongest advocates of bringing some flexibility into the application of the ROSLA principle.
I shall not cover a number of other points, as they have been very well

covered already, except that I wish to underline the problem which arises over the time at which the CSE examinations are held, and the fact that when the examinations are finished half the pupils who have taken them are able to leave school although the other half must return for seven more weeks of reluctant schooling. Every teacher I have spoken to who handles these pupils thinks that this is quite unrealistic. I welcome the pledge that the Under-Secretary gave today that he will take a very close look at the problem.
In one respect I am sorry that I did not speak before the Under-Secretary made his speech, because I want to raise another difficulty over a specific type of school which arises from the application of the present leaving age provisions. I have sought to do this for a little while in an Adjournment debate, so I make no excuse for raising the matter under cover of this debate.
I refer to the problem which is caused by the application of the leaving age provisions in special schools which cater for the educationally backward child—the ESN pupil. ESN pupils are in difficulty over leaving school and getting a job, anyway. To force them, in effect, to leave school on one of two set dates and to enter into immediate competition with more able school leavers increases the disadvantages which they immediately feel. I have had this point pressed on me strongly by teachers concerned with such pupils in my area.
If such pupils were able to leave school at any time, they would be more likely to find helpful employers who would be able to slot them in and give them a trial run at a time when the whole weight of the school leaving population is not descending upon the labour market.
The problem which these pupils face is greater, because educationally subnormal school leavers do not often stay in their first job. In fact, they have great difficulty in adjusting to employment outside. It will not surprise hon. Members to know that in my constituency one boy has tried 11 or 12 jobs in the course of a year. He has stayed at each job for just a few days. After that he has retreated to the comparative security which his home appears to offer to him.


I suggest that in the last year special schools should be allowed to let boys and girls leave at any time to make a start in work. But a school place should be kept open for them if they fail in their first stab at holding down a job. I understand from the teachers in these institutions that at present this is impossible. I ask the Minister to undertake to consult the specialist teachers and to consider whether more flexibility cannot be built into the system for this kind of school leaver. For the effect of ROSLA is to make the break with school far more final than it need be or should be.
I reiterate the point that has emerged from the debate, and particularly from my hon. Friends, that we are not advocating any great break with the principle which we adopted when we sought to raise the school leaving age. Of course, we accept that it is desirable for as many pupils as possible to stay on at school for a fifth year. All we are seeking is to introduce a little flexibility, and a greater understanding of the problems of the teaching profession. I believe that if we can relieve the stress syndrome that I described at just one point we shall at least be taking a step in the right direction.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I thought that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) was going to continue the tradition of this debate, which has been conciliatory in tone. I was shocked by his suggestion that the option should be open to children at special schools to leave before the age of 16. I thought that it was generally accepted that education up to 16 was vitally important for children attending special schools. In my constituency, there is a good special school which I visit. I cannot see any argument for altering that principle.
In general the debate has been characterised by a conciliatory tone. We have agreement across the Dispatch Box on many points. Certainly a difference of emphasis has been expressed from both sides of the House. I would not have wanted to enter the debate except for two reasons. The first is that on looking through some old newspaper cuttings the other day I came across an article written

by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) on this very subject. It is clear that over the past three years the hon. Gentleman has become more mellow in his views. The article is entitled "Unwilling Pupils and the Class". Admittedly it was written before ROSLA became a fact. In his article the hon. Gentleman said
…and the total breakdown of parental authority by the age of 15…
was a fact. The article went on to say that
adolescents who do not stay on at school leave because they, not their parents, wish it…
The hon. Gentleman was arguing that the reason for not raising the school leaving age was that the views of the pupils should be considered.
I thought, when I read the article originally, and certainly when I reread it, that it was a most extraordinary reply for a Conservative to make. Presumably, as a member of the Conservative Party he is a great believer in law and order. I think that it is an extraordinary reply to truancy and disruptiveness in the classroom. I would have thought that a Conservative would be the last person to want to react to that sort of behaviour in the classroom by giving in to it or by giving way to it.
The second reason for my wishing to take part in the debate is that there is a side to this subject which I do not think has so far been covered. I have listened to most of the debate and I believe that the matter needs some reference. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was right to refer to the academic or the scholastic bias of our educational system which has an unfortunate effect on those who happen to find themselves at the bottom end of the system.
One of the consequences of that bias is that we are apt all too often to neglect the social impact of education. We have talked a good deal about the cycle of deprivation and the problems which are faced by young people. We have been talking about many of those young people whilst discussing the need to have the school leaving age at 16 years.
In the cycle of deprivation there is one factor which has not had the emphasis which it should have been given. We are talking about many youngsters who within a relatively short time will themselves become parents. We


have said that youngsters are maturing younger. Some hon. Members have seen some kind of contradiction in a situation in which maturity is reached younger and in which education continues higher up the age scale. I regard that as an enormously valuable opportunity that we should grasp.
One of the vital jobs that can be undertaken during the school year from 15 to 16 is in trying to educate youngsters for the complicated variety of responsibilities that they will have to undertake within a short time of leaving school. If we are anxious, as we should be, about the consequences of inadequate parenthood, one of the jobs which we must face is to try to educate boys and girls during their final year at school in how to run a home successfully and in the various problems involved in looking after children.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a great deal of the problem concerned with the raising of the school leaving age has been created by the environment in which children are living and that the environment has been our

problem? We have built soulless towns which have created the problems we now see in the schools.

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I think that he is going a little wider than the immediate subject of the debate. However, he is right in suggesting that the great pressure of the environment on boys and girls makes the job of parenthood all the more difficult than it was a few decades ago. For that reason the social rôle of education—

Mr. Nigel Lawson: rose—

Mr. Barnett: —in the final year is enormously important in educating youngsters in the responsibilities which they will shortly have to assume.
A certain amount of emphasis has been laid on expanding nursery education—

Mr. Nigel Lawson: rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 1.

Division No. 67.]
AYES
[6.59 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Grist, Ian
Percival, Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Ancram, M.
Hawkins, Paul
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Archer, Jeffrey
Heyhoe, Barney
Renton, Rt.Hn. S [...]David(H't'gd'ns're)


Atkins, Rt.Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Heseltine, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bell, Ronald
Hooson, Emlyn
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Berry, Hon. Anthony
James, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Biggs-Davison, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sainsbury, Tim


Brittan, Leon
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shelton, William (L'mb'th.Streath'm)


Buck, Antony
Knox, David
Shersby, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Carlisle, Mark
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
McCrindle, R. A.
Sinclair, Sir George


Cope, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cordle, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Steel, David


Dixon, Piers
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, John


Durant, Tony
Mawby, Ray
Tugendhat, Christopher


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Tyler, Paul


Emery, Peter
Mills, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Moate, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Molyneaux, James
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Winterton, Nicholas


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
Neubert, Michael
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Fox, Marcus
Newton, Tony (Braintree)



Gardiner, George (Reigate&amp;Banstead)
Nott, John



Cardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Mr. Nigel Lawson and Mr. Peter Rees.


Gray, Hamish
Pardoe, John





NOES



Skinner, Dennis




TELLERS FOR THE NOES;




Mr. Martin Flannery and




Mr. Kenneth Marks.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 31 (Majority for Closure).

It being after Seven o'clock proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government Business).

Orders of the Day — RENT BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.8 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill's main purpose is to give security of tenure to the majority of those who are living in privately rented furnished accommodation.
Lack of security in this sector of housing has been increasingly a major cause of homelessness in our housing stress areas. For this reason, as long as five years ago the Labour Party concluded that furnished tenants should be given greater security in their homes. We have continued to press this view—joined by others active in inner city housing problems—and pledged ourselves to act in our 1974 election manifesto. Hence this Bill. It will give security to approximately five-sixths of the 764,000 furnished tenants throughout the country. In London, which has the largest proportion of such lettings, three-quarters of 279,000 tenants will be covered.
Our objective is simply stated. I am afraid that the Bill itself is far from simple. Rent legislation is a complicated and difficult field in which to work, and the urgency of the problems with which we are now dealing has ruled out a self-contained measure that can be understood in its own right, in favour of one that operates by reference to existing legislation—the Rent Act 1968 and the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971.
Those Acts consolidated the existing body of rent legislation, notably the Rent Act 1965. They provided that tenancies where the rent includes payment for the use of furniture—loosely known as "Part VI contracts"—should not be protected tenancies but subject only to the limited protection granted by the rent tribunal. Clause 1 of the Bill removes the provision that excludes furnished tenancies from full protection. It thereby extends to furnished tenants the indefinite security of tenure and the right to have a fair

rent registered which have been enjoyed by unfurnished tenants.
The Bill exempts three categories of tenancy from full Rent Act protection. The first of these will be lettings by resident landlords. I know that this decision has been criticised, but I hope that once I have explained the reasoning that lies behind the Government's decision hon. Members will agree with me that it is the fairest and most sensible course we could have chosen.
My own initial preference—I frankly admit—was for retaining the distinction between furnished and unfurnished accommodation and dealing with the question of eligibility for security in the furnished sector by reference to size of household, numbers of persons or some similar criterion. But it soon became clear that any distinction on this sort of basis would be unenforceable and unclear. Families are not static units, and it would be intolerable to have a situation where people stood to lose their security because a member of the household died or moved away.
Moreover, a recent Appeal Court decision—Woodward v. Docherty—has cast considerable doubt on the validity of the distinction between furnished and unfurnished lettings. This distinction has always depended on case law to interpret it and has always produced a hazy dividing line.
A further argument for moving away from the old distinction between furnished and unfurnished lettings was that with the coming more closely together of the two "codes" which is inherent in the basic policies underlying this Bill it would be virtually impossible to maintain a distinction between them.
It was for these reasons that I concluded that we should look for a new basis for deciding who should be eligible for security of tenure. The distinction between tenants of resident and non-resident landlords was the obvious choice. It has clear advantages in its own right. If an owner-occupier has to share his home with a tenant, he will quite reasonably be very careful about his choice—particularly if the tenant will have full security. If resident landlords were not to be exempted under this Bill the under-occupation already prevalent in owner-occu


pied dwellings and dwellings let on protected tenancies could be aggravated.
Moreover, the distinction is clear. Rent legislation, as I have already said, is a complicated business and it seems to me vital that we should take every chance to simplify it and thus make it as easy as possible for people to know exactly where they stand under the law. With this end in view it seems much more desirable that a tenant's right to security should depend on whether or not his landlord lives on the premises rather than on whether or not furniture is provided. This distinction, it appears, is so imprecise that nothing less than a High Court judgment is needed to clarify what it means in practice. The exemption of lettings by resident landlords has the great advantage of being simple and easy to understand. As I have indicated, the Bill, based upon this formula, will cover the vast majority of tenants in the furnished sector.
Although, consequently, Schedule 2 provides that, in addition to existing furnished lettings, all new lettings granted by a resident landlord shall be treated as Part VI contracts and therefore subject to rent tribunal jurisdiction, we do not intend to deprive any existing unfurnished tenants of resident landlords of the protection they already have.
I should like at this point to take the opportunity of reassuring those who are concerned about the position of the owner-occupier who lets his home while he is temporarily absent. The right of such people to recover possession of their homes when they need them for their own use has always been recognised, and the Bill does not deprive them of that right. Under Case 10 of Schedule 3 of the Rent Act there is an absolute ground for possession of unfurnished accommodation where the owner-occupier has given notice at or before the time the tenancy was granted that possession may be recovered under this case. In future this case will apply to furnished lettings by absent owner-occupiers.
The Bill also preserves the rights of absent owner-occupiers who have already let their homes furnished to recover possession. If the owner-occupier has let his home on a periodic furnished tenancy and he serves a Section 79 notice—the appropriate notice under Part VI of the Rent

Act—at the time of the letting, that notice will be valid for the purposes of regaining possession under Case 10, and he need take no action as a result of the Bill's enactment.
If a Section 79 notice has not been served, the owner-occupier can still guarantee recovery of his home provided he serves the notice appropriate to Case 10 within six months of the Bill's coming into force. These provisions can be found in Schedule 1 to the Bill.
The second category of exemptions concerns holiday lettings. This is an obvious exemption. It would not be right to give security of tenure in a house or flat which is rented for holiday purposes.
The third exempted category concerns lettings to students. The Government realise the need to ensure an adequate supply of lettings to students. We have been considering establishing a system for registering private lettings approved by specific educational institutions for occupation by students. Such lettings would then be excluded from full Rent Act protection. The register cannot however be set up quickly. The framework of such a system will need to be the subject of consultation with representatives of educational institutions and institutions providing courses of vocational training. It will also have to be discussed with the local authority associations. It would have been impossible to complete these consultations in time to make provision in this Bill.
We intend to set the discussions up after the passing of the Bill with a view to bringing early legislation before Parliament enabling a registration system to be set up. All we were able to do in this Bill was to exclude from protection tenancies granted to students by educational institutions specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. The reasoning behind this exclusion is that it is necessary to maintain accommodation specifically provided for the use of successive generations of students.
However, an amendment carried in another place widened the scope of this exemption quite drastically, so as to exclude from full protection any tenancy granted to almost anyone engaged in a course of study or vocational training. The exemption would apply whether the tenancy was granted by an institution or


by a private landlord. This amendment seeks to achieve the same end as that to which, as I have said, the Government are working; that is, the maintenance of an adequate supply of accommodation for students. But the form of the amendment is, I am afraid, hopelessly unacceptable.
The exclusion now relates not to the accommodation but solely to the circumstances of the tenant. Apart from the unfortunate implications which this carries of discrimination against students as a class, it would give rise to formidable practical difficulties. What, for example, would happen when someone who is already a tenant decides—perhaps with a view to changing his career—to become a student for a limited period? Presumably he would lose the protection he enjoys. Or again, what happens when a student, on completing his course, takes a job in the same area where he has been studying? If he does not change his residence, at what point in time, if at all, does he become a protected tenant?
In our view, the amended provision would be totally unworkable and might well prove to have a far-reaching effect on rent legislation as a whole. We shall therefore be asking the House to restore this part of the Bill to its original form—though with the undertaking to produce further legislation, when sensible proposals are ready along the lines I have indicated.
I turn briefly to some detailed points in the Bill. These include, for example, various amendments to the grounds for possession of a dwelling subject to full protection. One amendment, inserted in another place at the instance of the Opposition, would require a court to grant possession of a dwelling which the landlord requires for his retirement. The Government agree with the aims of this amendment, but are not happy with its present form. We therefore intend to bring forward our own amendment during the Bill's passage through this House, which we hope will achieve the same end in a rather more satisfactory way.
Schedule 1 also makes adjustments to the formula for fixing fair rents to take account of the provision of furniture under the tenancy. In Schedule 3 is an important provision to protect those furnished tenants whose landlords have served notices to quit before the Bill

comes into force but against whom a court order for possession has not yet been executed. Tenants in this position will have the right, under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3, to go back to the court which will be able to rescind the order if it would not originally have made it had the new Bill been already in force.
The Bill makes some important amendments to Part VI of the Rent Act, which will now include the important category of lettings by resident landlords. The maximum period for which a rent tribunal can grant security by suspending a notice to quit is extended by Clauses 7 and 9 from six to 12 months. The suspension can, of course, be renewed any number of times for periods up to 12 months. Clause 5 raises for England and Wales rateable value limits for Part VI contracts to bring them into line with those for protected tenancies. The limits for both full protection and Part VI will now be £1,500 in Greater London and £750 elsewhere.
The Bill we are bringing before the House today constitutes one of the main components in our overall housing strategy. In the last few years we have watched the supply of private rented accommodation shrink steadily. There seems to be general agreement on the part of most housing experts that this trend is irreversible. Consequently, it will not be long before private lettings cease to represent a significant feature of the housing market.
The Government's view is that housing is essentially a social service and that—apart from the owner-occupier who lets off part of his house—the future lies with the social landlords, that is, local authorities and housing associations, Since coming into office the Government have therefore gone all out to step up the activities of both. This is the only way to hold the rental market and increase it. We have introduced measures to boost local authority building programmes, to encourage the social ownership of rented property and to stimulate the expansion of the voluntary housing movement. Despite the housing situation we inherited from our predecessors, a good deal has already been achieved and I have every reason to hope that we will begin to see even better progress in the coming months.
The situation will not be transformed overnight. For some time to come there


will be many people whose rented homes will be privately owned. The rapid contraction of unfurnished lettings in recent years means that those looking for a home in the private market have been compelled—usually very much against their will—to go into furnished lettings. Having no security of tenure, they find themselves—particularly those families in the stress areas of our large cities—forced to pay high rents for inferior accommodation and they are never free from the awful fear of eviction and homelessness.
I need hardly say what a misery this can be for a young couple, or for a family with young children, or for a pensioner living on a fixed income. Such people desperately need the help that this Bill is designed to give them. They will now have indefinite security of tenure in their homes by statute, and they will be entitled to go to the rent officer for the registration of a fair rent, with a right of appeal to the rent assessment committee if they consider the rent officer's assessment too high.
I know that there are those who say that the Bill will bring about an immediate reduction in the number of private lettings available and thus only lead to a worsening of the country's housing situation. Before this debate is over at least one hon. Member will quote the Francis Committee, which recommended against the extension of security of tenure to furnished tenants on the ground that it would dry up the supply of rented accommodation altogether. My view has always been that this was the most weakly argued section of that committee's report. The evidence on which it was based was insubstantial and did not convince me that the extension of security would cause the private rented sector to shrink any faster than it has already been doing anyway. I certainly would not accept it as a valid argument for withholding from those who have to live in furnished lettings the full security they so desperately need. Any housing manager of any major city will say that the biggest single cause of homelessness with which he has to deal is insecurity in the furnished dwellings area of the housing market.
But let me pursue the point about the reduction in the market. The average

loss of rented dwellings has been running at the rate of 125,000 a year during the past 10 years. Those who argue that it is regulation and control of the market which dry up rented accommodation should be reminded that it was the period of greatest decontrol under the previous Conservative Government which saw the most drastic loss of rented housing in recent years. I refer to the post-1957 Rent Act period.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Speaking on 23rd January, the hon. Gentleman said:
Between 1966 and 1971 rented accommodation fell by just under 68,000 tenancies. In the unfurnished sector the fall was 122.000-plus and in the furnished sector there was a growth of 54,500 tenancies".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January 1973; Vol. 849, c. 334.]
How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that with the statement which he has just made?

Mr. Freeson: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will listen carefully to the figures I am about to give, he will see the picture fully. I have explained that there has been an average loss of 125,000 rented dwellings per year from the market over the last 10 years. The most drastic loss occurred during the period following the Rent Act 1957, which was the period of greatest decontrol in this sector of the housing market since the First World War. Between 1958 and 1964, 1½ million dwellings—an average of over 200,000 a year—left the rented market.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that decontrol of rent was the cause of these properties leaving the market, or was there some question of change in security of tenure?

Mr. Freeson: It was decontrol. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is putting to me, but he will recall the Rent Act 1957 which instituted what came to be known as creeping decontrol of security. It was very rapid creeping decontrol. The biggest single problem in the wake of that Act was the question not of rents but of insecurity. No longer did tenants have the security which they previously had, nor did the Act give them any substitute security. There may have been a case for altering the system. We argued in those days that there was no case for


removing all kinds of security, which is what happened under the Act.
The significant point I am making is that the most drastic loss of rented accommodation in the past 40 years or more occurred when there was decontrol. I am not arguing what were the causes. I am seeking to make the valid point that the argument of those who say that control, regulation and security caused the loss is belied by the facts. There is a steady loss every year, and the biggest loss occurred when there was the greatest loss of security in the period to which I have referred.
I ought perhaps to emphasise in conclusion the extreme urgency of the situation with which we are dealing. All over the country there are tenants on whom notices to quit have been served. They are in real danger of losing their homes if we do not act quickly. It may well be, now we have come so far with this Bill, that some landlords are trying to get rid of their tenants before it becomes law. I can only hope that those tenants who are faced with eviction are making proper use of their legal rights to remain in their homes as long as they can. They must apply immediately to the rent tribunal for temporary security. They must realise that they cannot be evicted without a county court order. I ask local authorities and those manning citizens' advice bureaux, housing aid centres and law centres, and Members of Parliament, whatever their party, to do everything they can to ensure that tenants know that they have these rights and use them whenever necessary. I ask the House to bear in mind the misery and uncertainty that people faced with eviction must at this very moment be feeling, the hope which they place in the Bill and the need to get it on the statute book with all possible speed.

7.30 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: After having heard a speech made by the Minister for Housing and Construction I am always tempted to abandon my own speech and start a debating battle with him on some of his contentions. The hon. Gentleman tried to rebut the evidence in the Francis Report for the simple reason that it is extremely powerful evidence and is accepted by most people.
The hon. Gentleman's analysis of what happened after 1957 is totally wrong. I remember it vividly. I was a rent-controlled protected tenant and had for years enjoyed the privilege of paying low rent with total protection. When the 1957 Act took effect my husband and I decided—thank goodness—to go in for owner-occupation. The reason why a substantial number of properties went out of the privately rented sector at that time was that since 1915 the landlords had had a raw deal with controlled rents. The moment those properties came out of control for the first time—and some out of security of tenure—the landlords could sell them. Naturally, landlords who had received a very reduced rent for a great many years took advantage of the decontrol to turn their property to good account. That is why the hon. Gentleman's analysis is totally wrong.
The hon. Gentleman well knows why there has been a vast reduction in the privately rented sector. If the Opposition try to restore the privately rented sector, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) recently by an amendment, every time we do so the Labour Party, sometimes in government, and sometimes, mercifully, in opposition. say that they will bring back control by security of tenure. That is why houses continually go out of the privately rented sector. We have now reached the stage when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State says that he wants to end the privately rented sector. With all due respect, that has been obvious from his actions for years, but only now has he admitted it.
We are embarking upon the debate under considerable difficulty. There are no printed copies of the Bill and there are no HANSARD reports of what happened in the other place. We are having to make do with these voluminous, un-marshalled HANSARD reports of what happened in the other place, of which there is one copy in the Library. I managed to get one copy of the proceedings of their Lordships' House which is an uncorrected manuscript.
The Minister referred to various schedules. Has he looked at the condition of those schedules as they are presented to the House? Schedule 2 has five manuscript amendments on the first


page, the next page has insertions and the following page has some deletions and some insertions. It is impossible to know exactly what is in the Bill with which we are presented. Yet the hon. Gentleman, by his own choice, brings it before the House without making sure that we have HANSARD reports from the other place. When I was in government my own private office always ensured that all the documents required for the debate were in the Vote Office. Last week the 1968 Act was not in the Vote Office and I could obtain it only by filling in a separate form. In my time in government, Departments always automatically ensured that all the necessary documents were in the Vote Office. They are not now, and if the Government cannot administer that, they cannot administer anything.
Until a few weeks ago many of us had the impression that furnished flats did not carry full security of tenure. True, the landlord had to go to a tribunal, and possibly to the court, to secure possession, but if the landlord persisted we thought that he could ultimately regain possession of a flat that was full of furniture. The hon. Gentleman made only a passing reference to case law being important in drawing the line between an unfurnished and a furnished tenancy. He knows, or should know, that even without the Bill a few weeks ago a major change in the law was brought about by a decision of the Court of Appeal—on 24th April 1974—in the case of Woodward v. Docherty. That decision, in effect, gave security of tenure to probably the majority of tenancies which previously counted as furnished tenancies but which by virtue of that decision became unfurnished tenancies. I was amazed that the hon. Gentleman made no reference to that case.

Mr. George Cunningham: He did.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Minister made no detailed reference to it—I apologise. The Court of Appeal decision was extremely far reaching. It was a case in which a basement flat, fully furnished and let for £10 a week, was held not to be a protected tenancy within the meaning of Section 2 of the Rent Act 1968. Admittedly, it was fully furnished, and

I quote from the judgment in the Court of Appeal:
The flat was let fully furnished, the judge of first instance finding that ' the flat contained almost everything that Mr. and Mrs. Docherty would require ', though some items were not of the standard they would like and did not work as well as they might have expected.
Later, the Court of Appeal said of the judge of first instance:
I think the judge attached too much importance to the fact that the flat was fully furnished".
I mention the case because it fundamentally changed the law in regard to what was or was not a protected tenancy. If those who had thought they were furnished tenants had gone to the county court or the tribunal and cited that case, many tenancies previously thought of as furnished would have been adjudged unfurnished under the new criterion. The new criterion was the interpretation of what is a substantial proportion of the rent attributable to the use of the furniture. Unless a substantial part of the whole rent is attributable to the use of the furniture, the tenancy is not a furnished tenancy.
In that case the test used for deciding whether a substantial part of the rent was attributable to furniture was an interesting and unusual one. The court decided that the market value of the furniture at the date of the letting should be taken. The furniture having been there for 12 years, the market value was comparatively low. I must confess that if some of my furniture went to a sale room it would not fetch much either. It was decided that the market value of what the furniture would fetch at the time was about £100. Therefore, although the flat was fully furnished, a substantial proportion of the £10 rent was not attributable to that furniture.
The same doctrine applies to attendance. There must be flats which are technically furnished flats but which in reality are not, where certain services are available. The same reasoning applies. Unless a substantial proportion of the rent is attributable to attendance, that attendance will not prevent it from being a protected tenancy.
I come to my own approach, in my constituency, to landlord and tenant cases. I think that the approach of most hon. Members is the same.


There is a general sympathy for and desire to help whichever person—either landlord or tenant—appears to have had a raw deal in the circumstances of a particular case. Most of us know that sometimes tenants and at other times landlords have a raw deal. I wish that in some ways the landlord and tenant law were drawn on a basis of equity, but over the years this has not been so. If it had been, I believe that the housing problem would be different from what it is at present.
I have known cases where, in equity, the landlord clearly has been in the right. I had one case involving a spinster of 79 who had two properties with controlled tenancies, and those properties were about to move into a fair rent situation. That has now been stopped by the Minister, but it is a case where the tenants are better off than the landlord and where all repairs are carried out by her. The equity is on the side of the landlord but the law is on the side of the tenants.
There have been other cases involving landlord and tenant, one of which involved a widow who turned her house into two self-contained flats. This sort of conversion is often the only means of providing an income that a widow can obtain. When the widow wanted to sell the whole house she could not do so, although she was nearly 80, because she could not get the tenants out. Again, in that case the tenants were well off.
Another case involved a lady owner-occupier who wanted to let rooms in her house. They were fully furnished rooms; the tenant was provided with no service or food, but shared a kitchen and bathroom. The tenant harassed the landlady. Many hon. Members know that such harassment of a landlord or landlady is not unknown. Although this involved a furnished letting, the owner-occupier had to go to the rent tribunal to get possession. The rent tribunal can suspend for six months, then suspend again for a further six months, and so on. Eventually, the owner moved out of her own house until the tenant could be got out.
In that case the owner-occupier had to pay extensive solicitors' fees, and received no rent because the tenant vanished without paying, and the owner-occupier had to repair the damage to

furniture. Again in that instance the equity was very much on the side of the landlord. The Francis Report, on page 111, points to cases in which individual landlords, for example, elderly ladies, are harassed by tenants. I cite these cases as showing that this House, under successive Governments, seems to have made no attempt to be fair to the landlords.
There are other cases in which the equity is all on the side of the tenants. I have known cases in which landlords have harassed tenants with noise, rudeness, ridicule and frightening incidents to get those tenants out of the dwellings. There have been other cases in which the landlord has paid little attention to repairs, or has refused to take measures to fight damp, and so on, and cases where the landlord, for no good reason, has given the tenant notice to quit. I knew of one case in which a tenant refused to pay rent because of the behaviour of the landlord. This behaviour caused the tenant to get into trouble with the tribunal.
In all those cases the equity is on the side of the tenant. We do not seem to have approached landlord and tenant law on any basis other than the expediency of the moment. We should try an approach on the basis of fairness between landlord and tenant. We have done much to help the deserving tenant but comparatively little to help the deserving landlord, or to encourage him to let empty houses or vacant rooms.
The Minister may claim that under Schedule 2 to the Rent Bill there is one improvement for landlords, namely, that new unfurnished tenancies with a resident landlord do not carry security of tenure for the first letting, which may be for an unlimited number of years provided that the number is specified. The two-year limitation was struck out in the other place. Therefore, the first new unfurnished letting on the part of a resident landlord for a fixed number of years is the only one which escapes security of tenure at the end of that term of years. This is an improvement, and on that basis is to be welcomed, but, on the other hand, the Minister has extended the period for suspension of notice to quit from six months to 12 months, and there can be a renewal of the 12-months period. That of itself will not encourage the maximum amount of new accommodation to come on to the market.
I wish to turn to a number of other aspects of the Bill. On the main point in respect of protection, the real danger as we see it is that the supply of new lettings will be severely affected and may even cease. The situation will be similar to that in regard to unfurnished controlled tenancies. In the old days if a person occupied an unfurnished controlled dwelling he was sitting pretty; otherwise he had no chance of obtaining such accommodation. In other words, the situation assisted those who were controlled tenants but acted in a damaging way in respect of all those who sought accommodation and found the supply was reduced.
There are many empty rooms, cottages and flats which could be made available by owner-occupiers, but these people are afraid to take such a step. They feel that they have little chance of obtaining possession when they need it even though reasonable notice is given, and they fear the position which may arise if the present or any future Government give extra security of tenure where it does not now exist. I suspect that during the passage of the Bill we shall have many demands for extra security of tenure affecting resident landlords, or those cases where board is provided. The second reason why landlords are afraid to take this step is that the amount of rent described as "fair or reasonable" is often neither fair nor reasonable, considering the outlay and the risks involved. I know a case where the owner-occupier of a large house borrowed money to have his house converted properly into several flatlets with the aid of an improvement grant, only to discover that the fair rent awarded by the rent officer did not begin to cover the interest on the outstanding loan, let alone cover any prospect of return on capital. In those circumstances if the fair rent were increased the tenant could get the extra rent allowance under legislation passed by the Conservative Government.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the price paid by the owner for his property should have reflected the level of fair rent that he thought he would obtain? Should not the price have been lower than the sum he paid for it?

Mrs. Thatcher: I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was

referring to the person's own house. The man in question had lived in it for some time. The argument involved the cost of converting the rooms into proper flatlets. It was a good conversion, and the fair rent was not enough to service the loan. The owner wrote to me and asked what he should do. The answer may well be that before one embarks upon such a scheme one should ask what the fair rent would be, but having found the answer the person concerned may well decide not to do the conversion and therefore the new accommodation would not come on to the market. That is another reason for taking the view that fewer lettings are likely to come on to the market.
The Minister will no doubt claim that a fair rent is a fair rent is a fair rent, or is a reasonable rent, but as far as I can see there are five different bases of valuation affecting hereditaments in the rent and rating Acts. First, in the 1968 Act there are three different bases of valuation. There is the fair rent under Section 46(2) which, in effect, is a market rent minus the scarcity factor. Then there is a different basis of valuation for the Part VI furnished letting, as set out in Section 73(1)(b). There, the tribunals have power to reduce the rent to such sum as is reasonable. The reasonable rent there is a different basis from the fair rent basis of Section 46. Then there is a third basis of valuation under Section 2(2) as it applies to furnished tenancies, when trying to discover the proportion of the rent attributable to the furniture. That is based upon the market value of the furniture at the time of the letting. But the rest of the rent is not based upon the market value of the flat with vacant possession at the time of the letting. So there we have one rent in one section with two separate, different bases of valuation for that single flat.
There are two other bases of valuation. The first is the one which the Minister is proposing to reintroduce under his circular under the Housing Finance Act, where he goes back to reasonable rents under the Housing Act 1957 for council properties, which must reflect a reasonable balance between tenants and rate payers. That is a different "reasonable" from the "reasonable" in this Act.
The fifth basis of valuation is that for rating, which is open market rental value.
It is quite absurd to have five different bases of valuation. But the Minister is introducing extra bases of valuation. He is having the one in his circular. He could take advantage of this Bill to alter all those in the 1968 Act, because the whole Bill is drafted by reference to the 1968 Act and, mercifully, the Long Title that he has given to this Bill would enable almost any amendments to be made to the 1968 Act. That, no doubt, will give the hon. Gentleman food for thought before this Bill completes its Committee stage.
On valuation, the state of the 1968 and other Acts is in a great muddle. What the hon. Gentleman is doing in this Bill will also put the administration of the law into a great muddle. As far as I can see, having looked at it, in the case of a landlord who is never resident, the rent of an unfurnished flat goes through the rent officer and the rent assessment panel system. Therefore, that landlord applies to the rent officer and to a rent assessment panel. The ruling is that the rent assessment panel must give an answer with reasons about the rent which it decides is the proper fair rent. In that way, we have a process for comparison between all the cases which it decides under that branch of the law.
Under the new Part VI cases in this Bill, in the case of a resident landlord, a new unfurnished letting will go not through the rent officer and the rent assessment panel but to the rent tribunal system which I gather gives oral judgments and does not have to give reasons for its judgments unless specifically requested and which does not have to put its answers in writing. Furthermore, there is no system of cross-checking between one rent and another decided by that rent tribunal, and no system of appeal from that rent tribunal.
For unfurnished lettings, therefore, the whole administration goes up two different arms of the law. As far as I can see, not only is the valuation in a muddle; the legal administration will be in a muddle, too.
I want now to say a few words about the position of students. If the Minister takes out the amendment which was put in in another place and does nothing to change the Bill from the original Bill before the beginning of next term, there

will be considerable difficulties in the university towns. I know that in a town where there is a university, a polytechnic, a couple of colleges of education and a college which is doing advanced work, there will be a large additional influx of students each year because of the expansion. There was always a crisis of accommodation at the beginning of the year. If, as a result of this Bill, or the Woodward v. Docherty case, security of tenure is given where none exists at the moment, there will be a serious shortage of accommodation this September and very little way of getting over it.
Ultimately, under this Bill there will be a shortage, unless the Government are prepared to cut substantially the number of students, especially in those towns which have several institutions of higher education. I can see for the first time a genuine crisis of accommodation for students as a result of what the Minister said he proposed to do, unless we can persuade him to do something different. Alternatively, the students will not have to go to their chosen colleges. They will not all have decided yet, because they will not know their A-level results. Many will have to choose colleges near their homes. But there are not suitable courses for everyone near home. It is clear that the Minister will have very great difficulty with accommodation for students if he attempts to leave the Bill in its present form.
I noticed what the hon. Gentleman said about the position of those buying homes for their retirement. Thanks to the efforts of my noble Friend, the Baroness Young, the Bill contains an amendment which protects those who buy homes for retirement but do not live in them until retirement. That amendment was put in in Committee at her insistence and at her persistence against the will of the Government. I have looked through what purports to be the relevant HANSARD and I notice the resistance with which the amendment was met originally. I congratulate the Minister on his conversion.
Clearly, we must give protection to those who during their working lives live in tied houses, whether they be Ministers, headmasters or principals of colleges of education, and who know that if they leave it until retirement to purchase a home they will not be able to afford it


and, accordingly, attempt to buy long before retirement, not to occupy those houses but with the intention of letting them either as furnished or as unfurnished tenancies—probably furnished—to help pay the mortgages. These are people who want to help themselves and who are used to doing so. We must make it clear in this Bill that they are fully protected, and can get possession when they want to.
I notice that the present amendment is not fully effective for that purpose because it is hinged to the clause dealing with holiday lettings, which is possibly the only one to which it could be attached.

Mr. Rees-Davies: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that present Ministers of the Crown have a number of houses which they let, and that they may find themselves in difficulty after the General Election when they lose office and are unable to get back their houses?

Mrs. Thatcher: I spent some time over the weekend puzzling out whether the tenants of a furnished house would be deemed to be unfurnished tenants by virtue of the Woodward v. Docherty case. I could not make up my mind. I tried to decide it on the basis of a case in High-gate, taking the value of the furniture at so much and the rent at so much. It is possible that some of those may have Woodward v. Docherty protection, but they may not.
That brings me to another point mentioned by the Minister. Owner-occupiers who have let their houses furnished and are away or in other accommodation will now have to give notice within six months if they are to regain possession when they return. I hope that Ministers of the Crown are not so busy within their Departments that they do not observe the legislation passing through this House. Some people who are abroad and have let their homes will not know that they have to give notice within six months if they are to regain possession of their houses. We must pay attention to that point in Committee.
I have been through the Bill, with the 1968 Act alongside it, and found innumerable points which require to be clarified, a large number of which will need amending. Every subsection seems

to require something because circumstances will arise which are not properly catered for.
I am not happy that the Minister has adequately provided for holiday lettings. The holiday accommodation would need to have been let in the previous year. There may be cases where people have had a year off because of illness or other circumstances. Those cases are not properly covered by the Bill.
As yet, people cannot be forced to let empty accommodation; they can only be persuaded. If I were asked to advise a resident landlord whether to let, having read the Bill I should advise him that the risks were too great, because he may not be able to regain possession. More legislation may be passed. A landlord may not be certain of getting a fair rent. I always look at legislation in terms of what I would do. If I were asked to give advice to a member of my family or to others I should have to tell them that if they wanted to regain possession and get a good return they ought not to let their accommodation. One's home is too precious to risk the amount of disruption that could occur.
The substance of the Bill has in some measure been pre-empted by the case to which I have frequently referred—Woodward v. Docherty. I hope that it is clear that I do not like the structure of the Bill, or its detail. It is legislation by reference. The Bill is a poor professional job. That is not the fault of the draftsmen. It is due to the inadequate instructions given to the draftsmen. The Bill is difficult to interpret within the framework of existing legislation.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will be selected to serve on the Committee. He is far more expert than I am in landlord and tenant law. I hope that in Committee he will call attention to the many matters which even I foresee will give rise to difficulty.
I fear that the Bill will lead to less, not more, accommodation being available. The Minister thinks that he can cope with the situation by continually pouring more ratepayers' and taxpayers' money—that is what it is—into the public sector. He cannot, because the sums are so enormous that ratepayers and taxpayers will not pay them both for their own and


other people's accommodation, unless those other people cannot afford it. However, that is a different matter. [Interruption.] Rebellions that we have never seen before? The reason is that the combination of taxes which people are having to pay is too great for them to bear. The Minister will have to rely on the private sector if enough accommodation is to be found. Therefore, he would be well advised to heed the amendments which we shall put down in Committee if he is to get the Bill through.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I am tempted to abandon what I intended to say and to start by answering some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and particularly to correct the errors that she has expounded.
Before coming to such detailed points, I should like to give an immense welcome to the Bill. It has been my major political objective for many years to achieve legislation with this aim. Indeed, at the Labour Party Conference in 1969 I had the privilege of moving the resolution which resulted in the Bill becoming Labour Party policy. Therefore, I am delighted to see it being proposed in this House now, but I am alarmed to hear from the Opposition of a possible filibuster in Committee which may endanger the Bill.
I have lived in North Kensington for 16 years and for nearly four years I represented the constituency in Parliament. A housing survey of that area in 1968 found that 68 per cent. of households were occupying so-called furnished accommodation. I say "so-called" because the right hon. Lady suggested that Woodward v. Docherty changed the law. On the contrary, in 1948 the House of Lords in its decision in Palser v. Grinling and Property Company v. Mischoff held exactly as the Court of Appeal affirmed in Woodward v. Docherty.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: rose—

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt speak later and he can then correct me if he wishes. The House of Lords held effectively what the Court of Appeal upheld in Woodward v. Docherty.
In every case that came to me, as a lawyer acting for tenants, I raised the question whether a furnished tenancy or so-called furnished tenancy was a furnished tenancy. I have challenged that point in court in every case and only in about 5 per cent. of cases where the issue was raised did the court hold that the so-called furnished tenancy satisfied the test contained in the Rent Act.
I was glad that the right hon. Lady drew attention to this matter. I sincerely trust that the Bill will not be delayed. I should like to emphasise that, as she said, there are few genuinely furnished tenancies. Anybody who is threatened with eviction should not only go to the rent tribunal but should wait until a county court has declared his tenancy to be a genuinely furnished tenancy, and should argue the point vigorously before the court.

Mrs. Thatcher: Why is the Bill necessary.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: It is necessary because it is essential in every case, before a so-called "furnished" tenant gains security of tenure, for him to get legal aid, and a lawyer, to get evidence from surveyors or valuers and to be utterly determined. On average, it takes a day or a day and a half—and in many cases it takes two or three days—for the county court to conclude, as almost invariably it does, that, notwithstanding that a letting is described as a furnished tenancy, it does not fulfil the necessary requirements which have existed in the law for many years.
Even if the Bill should be delayed, almost every tenant has protection in the law, provided he knows how to go about getting it. Unfortunately, the machinery to enable a tenant to get the legal protection to which he is entitled is so complex and difficult to operate that only a Bill which puts the distinction at the right point, abolishing this wholly artificial and irrelevant distinction whether a tenant has furniture forced upon him which he does not want, will help him. The Francis Committee found that a high proportion of all furnished tenants would have preferred to have unfurnished tenancies. They did not want furniture forced upon them. The distinction whether a tenant has unwanted furniture should cease to be the


test of his security. The relevant test should be whether the landlord regards the premises as his home, not simply as an investment.
The right hon. Lady said that from 1915 to 1957 landlords had had a poor deal. That may be so—it depends upon what one means by a poor deal—but surely she does not imagine that somebody who bought property in 1915 waited until 1957 for Conservative justice. The value of the property must have been very low at the time it was acquired, and it is scarcely likely that an individual who bought property in 1914 would still be holding on to it 43 years later.
In practice, people who bought cheap tenanted property received a windfall under the 1957 Conservative Government. I was a protected tenant in 1957, and I found that at the same time as I lost my security the value of property shot up so fast that it was impossible for me to stay in the area where I had lived for many years. I had to move. Many people who were in a less advantageous economic situation than I was were forced not only out of their homes but out of London. They were forced away from their jobs, their families and their friends. The Bill is directed at doing away with that kind of insecurity, and it will achieve that aim.
In welcoming the Bill I have in mind a number of specific cases in what used to be my constituency of North Kensington. I am thinking particularly of some elderly spinsters. I have in mind three nurses who are waiting for the Bill to become law. I shall not name the property in which one elderly person is living, because the landlord is still hovering around like a wolf at the door trying to hound her out of her property and gain possession before the Bill comes into force.
In one instance, a qualified nurse in her late 50s has lived at the house in question for 14 years. She is caring for an unfurnished tenant in her early 80s who lives on the ground floor. The landlord has accepted that he has to rehouse the unfurnished tenant, but he is trying to evict the furnished tenant on whom she depends.
Another case is that of a retired nurse in her early 70s who has lived in her

accommodation for 17 years. She has no hope whatsoever of finding any other accommodation in that part of London at a rent that she can begin to afford. This is the only area in which she has friends and contacts, having lived were since the end of the war. She, too, will be evicted unless the Bill goes through in good time to prevent that from happening.
These are exceptional cases in which the landlords have been alerted to the dangers that Woodward v. Docherty illustrated and realised that the Rent Act gave a landlord freedom to evict only if the value of the furnishing was high in relation to the rent. After buying premises, they took care to offer existing tenants a newly furnished room on a different floor so that the ratio of rent to price was such that there would not be adequate protection.
From my experience in local government and as a Member of Parliament I could cite many tragic examples of people having lost their homes because it has been impossible to obtain protection under the law. I constantly come across cases in which it is too late to do anything. The tenancy has been forfeited, notwithstanding the fact that the Rent Act gives only a small minority of landlords freedom to evict.
The right hon. Lady predictably made a lot out of the argument that the number of lettings will decline as a consequence of the Bill becoming law. It would be less than frank not to accept that there is likely to some reduction, but the decline has been continuing at a great rate since 1957, and there will be a very much faster decline if the Bill does not become law. Whether it is a good or a bad thing is perhaps arguable, but the effect of announcing that one is to legislate in this way is to speed up the rate at which the speculative landlord—that is, one who has bought solely for profit—will seek to turn out his tenants. If he does turn out his tenants, he will find that under the Bill he will not readily be able to make the killing that he is expecting.
Francis reported landlords as saying that if security were extended to furnished tenants they would prefer to sell rather than to let. I accept that that may be the view of most individual landlords, but there are about 750,000 furnished lettings, and in practice it would not be possible


for all those properties to be sold. As Miss Lyndal Evans pointed out in her minority report,
The only parts of the furnished sector which would be readily saleable for owner occupation are purpose-built flats and whole houses let furnished…Accommodation in flats in converted houses accounts for 42 per cent. of all furnished accommodation…Accommodation let as rooms accounts for 46 per cent. of all furnished accommodation.
That being so, only a small proportion of accommodation would be available for selling, because it would not be possible to sell the unsatisfactory conversions which form the great majority of the total. They are unsaleable, and even if landlords attempt to turn out their tenants and sell the property they will find that it is not practicable to do so. But even if, regrettably, landlords were to take that course, the rate of decline would probably be very much slower than the decline that will inevitably occur if the Bill does not become law.

Mr. Peter Emery: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the Government want to increase the number of rented tenancies coming on to the market the best way to do it is to announce that they have no intention of ever again extending rent control into this area? It is only if that statement is made that anybody will be reassured enough to provide this type of rented property. At the moment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said, people are scared of letting property because they do not know what further steps will be taken by the Government. If the Government want to encourage this sector of housing, they must take action contrary to what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: That would be one way of getting accommodation, but at a price. The hon. Gentleman knows what value property has reached in certain areas, and he knows, too, who is benefiting therefrom. The Government deplore it, but it is a fact that the cost of providing any kind of self-contained accommodation is extremely high. Without controls over the level of rents, the amount of accommodation for letting would be small and at a price which nobody employed even in a skilled manual job or an ordinary clerical job would have the slightest chance of being

able to afford. There would be an upper-and middle-class London, Birmingham, and so on, and there would be no working-class residents in those cities.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) can see what is happening in such places as Berlin and Bonn. There is no rent control, and the centres of those cities are occupied by middle-class people and foreigners. Working-class families are housed in vast estates outside the city areas. The social and community life in the centre of the city has been destroyed in the interests of property developers. That is what the hon. Gentleman is advocating. Yes, it would provide accommodation to rent at a price, but at a price which is totally socially unacceptable and which would destroy the existing communities of London.
There are still substantial communities in London, but they will not survive if the action which the hon. Gentleman advocates is followed. The only way to preserve communities is by providing security of tenure and by ensuring alternative sources of supply of rented accommodation. The Bill will achieve this to some extent. We shall now be having the right distinction when it comes to the provision of accommodation. Where an owner-occupier is letting part of his home, he will be able to let in the knowledge that the tenant will not have security of tenure.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley said inadvertently—I think I am correct—that the exemption of the owner-occupier's letting is not confined to a fixed term of letting. The owner-occupier letting part of his home, whether furnished or unfurnished, will be able to recover possession and it will be treated as a Part VI contract.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): indicated assent.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am glad to see that my hon. Friend confirms this. It would be unfortunate if there were some misunderstanding about this. I share the hope that owner-occupiers will in future be prepared to make rooms available in their houses for subletting. It may not be a satisfactory way of providing homes, but it is a much more satisfactory way to cater for the minority who


want accommodation for relatively short periods than the situation which exists at present, such as in Notting Hill, stocked with houses, managed by Lawrence—

Mrs. Thatcher: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but in the first print of the Bill the two years period was included. With this manuscript amendment, the two years are not included. Am I therefore right in thinking that the resident owner-occupier can let unfurnished under a Part VI letting for an indefinite period and can always recover possession through the rent tribunal procedure?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: That is my understanding of the Bill. Incidentally, I found that it was much easier to follow this Bill having read it when it was first presented in the House of Lords. I found it helpful, when rereading it after it had emerged from the other place, to find that the amendments appeared in another form of type.

Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps it will be convenient if I intervene in my hon. Friend's speech at this point and make the situation clear to the right hon. Lady who astonishingly was so much in error. I was devastated that the right hon. Lady could actually make an error.
May I make it clear, for the benefit of the House, that under our Bill any periodic tenancies will be exempted from full protection. The first fixed-term contract granted to any particular tenant, and additionally to periodic tenancies, will be exempted from full protection. Of course, a fixed-term contract could be followed by a periodic tenancy. But I should like to make it clear that it is not only an extended fixed-term tenancy which is exempted from protection. Under our Bill any periodic tenancy will be exempted from protection. It is only the second of two fixed-term contracts granted in succession which will qualify for full protection.

Mrs. Thatcher: That is rather closer to what I said than to what the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) said. Could the Under-Secretary point out the words upon which he relies for that interpretation? With five manuscript amendments, one page of printed amendments and a second page

of deletions and amendments, it is impossible to get that meaning out of this muddle. The hon. Gentleman is now talking not about an unlimited periodic tenancy but a fixed term followed by something else or not followed by something else.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I have been slightly indulgent on this occasion, but I think the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to continue speaking for some little time before he is interrupted again.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I thought that was a useful series of interventions, even if they were not strictly within order As I understand it, the second point made by my hon. Friend is to clear up the anomaly of the avoidance of control by the presence of letting on fixed-term tenancies, letting for four weeks or six months at a time. thereby attempting to evade the protection which the rent tribunals can give. That will, no doubt, be cleared up by my hon. Friend.
My alarm is considerable when I hear the right hon. Lady talking about the attitude which the Opposition are likely to adopt to this Bill. The co-operation of the House will be needed to ensure that the Bill becomes law. If it fails, the wolves will be not just at the door; they will have broken through the last barriers. I know only too well how the Rachmans in North Kensington are striving to get rid of the furnished tenants before the Bill becomes law. If the Opposition decide to protect them, the Opposition will have a very heavy burden on their conscience.
They say, with Francis, that the purpose should be to encourage private landlords to let. If private landlords are only willing to let on a basis where they can turn their tenants out when it suits their convenience, the accommodation, if provided, cannot be regarded as a home. If a tenant knows that he can be turned out of the house the moment it suits the landlord's convenience, when somebody richer than the tenant comes along or when the landlord wants to sell the house to make a capital profit, the tenant has no feeling that where he is living is his home. He is living in accommodation that is cluttered with furniture that he does not want and he is


living in a situation which he can never enjoy the sense of security which everyone in this House regards as automatic. If that security is not provided because of filibustering on the benches opposite, the Opposition will have a heavy burden on their consciences.

8.28 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I want to declare an interest in that I let furnished flats in my own house and also let a furnished cottage. I am proud of my relationship with my tenants and I do not think that any of them seriously wishes that relationship to be disturbed by legislation—but perhaps I shall now be getting letters from them after saying that. I also have an interest in the Bill because Kensington has more furnished tenancies than any other constituency. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), the previous Member for North Kensington, has made this a particular study.
The Bill, if it is to be a useful measure, should be a small part of a much bigger housing programme. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finch-ley (Mrs. Thatcher) gave me an uneasy feeling that the Bill has been far too hastily put together and that many points will have to be attended to in Committee if it is to be a satisfactory piece of legislation. However, I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden on getting this measure brought forward through the Department. To work so long and hard and then to see the result of one's labours so near must be a proud moment. I understand that.
I also understand the reasons why the hon. Member feels that something has to be done, particularly in Kensington, about people living in wretched and insecure accommodation. When one talks to representatives of Shelter, the Child Poverty Action Group or other bodies concerned with housing and poverty problems, one hears of a stream of cases which seem to be soluble only with security of tenure. But what these cases prove is that the whole housing situation in the country is thoroughly unsatisfactory. The worst cases are often social rather than housing problems. To install a family permanently in unsuitable housing is not to meet their social needs.
Nor should families be given perpetuity of tenure in accommodation which can only be satisfactorily improved by its demolition and their rehousing. The Housing Bill should be able to make a contribution to the problem of hopelessly obsolete and inadequate furnished accommodation in the housing action areas. Perhaps it might have been more prudent if the Government had waited to see the effects of that Bill before rushing forward with this one.
To make an unsatisfactory home a permanent one is not a true solution of the housing problem. There will always be bitterness if the Bill goes through, because landlords will feel that tenants have acquired their accommodation without paying for it. There will be bitterness and inadequate housing whether or not permanent tenure is given to furnished tenants.
Surely the right answer is to make it easy for people to move if they want to do so, or if they have to move for family or employment reasons or because of strong personal preferences. If the housing market is made even less fluid, as it will be by the Bill, the crisis of accommodation to which my right hon. Friend referred will be made worse. The Government should be putting their minds to the fact that the market is not sufficiently fluid.
I was shocked by the Minister's ready acceptance of the idea that the decline in the rented sector was irreversible. It has proved irreversible in an atmosphere of control, but if the Government exerted themselves they could find solutions. I have spent considerable time, perhaps too long, trying to put before the House some recommendations of my own which no doubt could be improved by experts and by study. There is an opening for the Department on these lines, but it has shown that, for doctrinaire reasons, it does not wish to take it. It actually prefers to see the market for rented accommodation drying up except in the municipal sector. That is not a satisfactory recipe in the long run.
The market is not sufficiently fluid and the Bill will make it less so.
Another problem is that those who enter the market are generally least able to stand exposure to market forces. As I have said before, subsidies are available,


sometimes generous ones, to people in various categories of housing. Owner-occupiers can probably get subsidies through the tax system people in municipal accommodation may receive very large subsidies, far larger than they need; and people in controlled or regulated accommodation are indirectly subsidised by their landlords. But people in any of these categories who have to leave and go to the market for accommodation cannot meet the rents demanded and then they become a problem which concerns us all.
We should therefore look again at the whole structure of housing subsidies to see whether they are aimed at the real needs. The Housing Finance Act may have been controversial, although I thought it contained many fine and useful things, but if it did not go far enough let the Labour Party come forward with its own ideas for reform of housing subsidies.
I invite hon. Members to look at the different ways in which one can draw subsidies at present. There are option mortgages, rent allowances, rent rebates and housing allowances. There are the special allowances within the supplementary benefit which take account of actual rent. The national insurance system, as I have pointed out in other connections, also has a built-in structure of housing allowances in pensions and virtually all the other national insurance benefits.
This whole system is waiting for a Bonaparte of administrative ability and competence who can reform the entire structure of housing subsidies. I should like to feel that someone on the Government benches was working on these lines and would shortly be coming forward with specific proposals to solve the whole housing problem, looking at it as a cash problem and as a bricks and mortar problem. Instead of that, however, we are seeing measures brought in which echo those of the previous Government, or measures of this kind which are not sufficiently thought out and provide only a partial solution.
A further point is that existing accommodation is not being used to best advantage. In many municipal estates there is accommodation which is not being used to best advantage, though perhaps that is not a general complaint. But in the private

sector there is a great deal of accommodation the best possible use of which is not being made, possibly because people are afraid of letting. This will now be made worse because more people will be afraid of letting, who would have let previously, at any rate furnished accommodation. To leave a house must cease to be a disaster.
The same applies in the case of tied cottages in agriculture. The reason for the pressure for tied cottages to be made permanent homes for agricultural labourers is that everyone knows that if they lose their jobs and lose their homes at the same time they will be in serious difficulties. Let us put that matter right by making it easy for people to find accommodation. If we made better use of the existing housing stock, we should go a long way to meeting the problem.
What are local authorities doing about this matter? I should like to think that they were now better aware and more sympathetic to the special needs of people who have dropped to the bottom of our society and are in real need. There is discussion of this matter in the Finer Report. The House ought to be more fully aware of the accommodation problems and the cash problems of one-parent families. Let us imagine the case of a woman who feels in despair in her married life and must leave her home, perhaps because of her husband's cruelty, or in the interests of the children, and so on. If not even the furnished sector is available, what can she do? Local authorities will have to take note of these problems and see to it that their subsidies go mainly, if not exclusively, to those in the greatest need. That is not happening now.
What are the Government doing about this matter? I have said briefly what I think they ought to be doing. The whole structure of housing allowances and subsidies must be rationalised and made fairer. Then there is the question of the supply of accommodation. If the Ministers who dismissed my suggestions with such disdain when we debated this matter a fortnight ago have thought again, I hope that they will be ready to tell the House what their solution is, and not simply to feed us doctrinaire and largely irrelevant maxims of their own.
I foresee that the Bill will solve a certain number of desperate problems, about which hon. Members know, but


will cause much greater problems, even in the quite short term. We are facing a crisis in accommodation already. The Bill will make it worse.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, Before I call the next speaker, may I remind the House this this is only a short debate and that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak. It would be helpful if speeches were confined to 10 minutes.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I note your observation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall endeavour to be helpful.
I agree with the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) to a point, in that one can criticise the Bill as being yet another Bill in a series of piecemeal housing legislation presented to the House, which has meant that on each occasion we have been asked to decide on a particular aspect of housing. in isolation from other aspects. I agree that many of the housing problems into which we have blundered have arisen because we have been treating individual aspects of housing without seeing the overall picture. I hope that when we return in the autumn we shall be faced with more comprehensive legislation, dealing in particular with housing finance.
I welcome the Bill within the limited context which it sets for itself. It will bring immediate relief to a serious social problem, the extent of which we should not underestimate. If any hon. Member is in doubt about the reality of that prolem he should go to the Library and consult the latest issue of Social Trends, in which he will find that whereas furnished tenants make up less than 5 per cent. of all forms of household, they account for 38 per cent. of applications to housing aid centres and 25 per cent. of all admissions to emergency accommodation.
Moreover, the problem is worse than the national figures suggest, because it is localised in major cities. I hold no brief for London, but I understand that in London two-thirds of all those admitted to housing waiting lists as homeless are from furnished accommodation, and the scale of that problem interferes with the efforts of boroughs in dealing

with other housing problems, such as slum clearance.
The situation is getting worse. Figures for applications to rent tribunals for security of tenure show an alarming increase over the past three years. In 1971 there were a mere 7,000 applications in the nation as a whole, but in 1973 the figure was nearly double that.
The Bill will benefit those who suffer from these problems. I have no doubt about that, but the point has been put—and it is a serious point—that against this we have the larger problem that it will bring about a reduction of units available for furnished letting. It is important to realise that the distinction between furnished and unfurnished letting is largely spurious and did not exist before 1965. Private lettings as a whole are in a decline, and that decline goes back to before any attempt in 1965—or indeed in this year—to control occupation. If any hon. Member doubts that, I shall be happy to take him to places in my constituency where private furnished tenants were put out on the streets in the past two or three years—long before this policy became part of ourmanifesto—

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Gentleman says that the distinction is spurious, but it is not. The unfurnished tenant wishes to let on a fairly long basis, yet in the main cities the overwhelming proportion of furnished accommodation consists of tourist accommodation. There are people who deliberately let for three, six or nine months in order to reap turnover and provide accommodation on a regularly moving basis.

Mr. Cook: I shall be pleased to take the hon. and learned Gentleman to some places in my constituency. He will see the gentrification and movement occupation, and meet some of the tenants who have been put out in the past two or three years. He will be disabused of the notion that they were involved in holiday or short-term letting and did not want to stay in their homes permanently. The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument does not take account of the interesting fact that there has been a rapid movement from unfurnished to furnished lettings in the past nine years, and it is hard to believe that that is connected


with an increase in British tourism. It was simply a measure to evade rent protection and security of tenure which was put into the Rent Act 1965. That can be checked by looking at the amount of furniture provided in some properties. The inadequacy of furniture in some properties is deplorable. For instance, a survey by the Child Poverty Action Group showed that of 41 flats which had been considered by a rent tribunal 32 were legally unfurnished. Why has there been this flight from the unfurnished to the furnished sector since 1965? The answer is that it has been done to evade the provisions of the Rent Act 1965, regarding not only security but rent control. The Rent Act 1965 was something of a fraud in this respect, in that it pretended that one could control rent without giving security of tenure. We all know the result of that. In the great majority of cases where furnished tenants have gone to rent tribunals to obtain a reduction of rent or six months' security of tenure, they have been promptly evicted in the seventh month.
My constituency agent went through a difficult two-year period. He went to the largest letting agency in Edinburgh, obtained a furnished letting, went to the tribunal, had the rent reduced, got his six months' security of tenure, and was then evicted in the seventh month. He then went to the second largest agency and went through the same process, getting his six months' security of tenure and being evicted in the seventh month. He went to the third largest letting agency in Edinburgh, went through the same process, got his six months' security of tenure, and in the seventh month was evicted yet again.
The embarrassing thing for this man was that by this time he had been round the three professional agencies which, between them, controlled 75 per cent. of all privately let dwellings in Edinburgh. It was impossible for him to find any alternative accommodation. He, like the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), was fortunate in being able to solve his problem by becoming an owner-occupier. Not everyone is so fortunate. It is because of those who cannot afford that solution that I welcome the Bill.
As the Bill is before us essentially to stop an evasion, namely, that of the Rent Act by providing furniture, it is important for the House to scrutinise the Bill carefully and ensure that alternative methods of evasion are not being created. I am sorry to say that in the Bill as it stands there are plenty of alternative methods of evasion.
There is, first, the question of the resident landlord. I shall not dwell on this generally, because I suspect that other hon. Members will wish to do so. I wish, however, to make one specific point which is connected with Scotland. The Bill is nonsense in Scottish legal terms in its definition of a resident landlord. Most urban accommodation in Scotland is provided by tenements which may, under one roof, provide between 16 and 20 separate self-contained flats. Under the Bill as it stands, those 16 to 20 self-contained flats will be treated as one dwelling.
This is a serious point, because it is common in tenements in Scotland for one owner-occupier to let out one or two other flats on the same stair. For the purpose of the Bill he will be treated as a resident landlord. That is nonsense, because all the flats are totally self-contained.
I come to the two main points of evasion that I wish to deal with. The first is the question of flats available for holiday lettings. We have in Scotland, in the Islands, the Highlands and in the Borders, a growing and serious problem of summer homelessness. Families who work on the land and who can obtain accommodation in the winter find that that accommodation is required during holiday periods and they have no alternative but to sleep rough or camp. I am very doubtful of the social value of denying such families the right to security of tenure.
The House has recently taken a firm line on the question of second homes and decided to withhold improvement grants in connection for work thereto. It seems paradoxical that so soon after the House has taken that firm line it should be encouraging holiday lets in this way. I am concerned not only about the issue of substance but about the fact that this will provide yet another pretext for evading the rent protection provisions in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that there are already cases of landlords bringing pressure to bear on tenants to evict them before the Bill reaches the statute book. It is right that my hon. Friend the Minister should be made aware that there are already cases in which landlords are taking evasive action to avoid the consequences of the Bill should it reach the statute book.
Shelter has established emergency provision for taking care of some tenants who are faced with eviction as a consequence of the publication of the Bill. It reports that already it is having cases brought forward from not very salubrious areas of London, such as Notting Hill, where landlords are going to tenants and saying that they want written into the let the provision that the accommodation is a holiday let.
In my constituency there is a dwelling composed entirely of bed sitting rooms and inhabited by manual workers who have been there for some time. Each of these manual workers is employed in Edinburgh. Each has been asked to sign a document saying that he is on holiday. The Bill must be strengthened to prevent any evasion such as this.
The other point of evasion that I wish to deal with concerns students. As has been indicated, in the original form of the Bill students were exempt if they were living in property provided by an educational establishment. As I understand it, the amendment—I have not had an opportunity to see it in printed form—exempts them as a class. I appreciate that the function of the amendment was to try to help students by making more accommodation available. I have many student constituents, but I doubt whether it is in their interests for there to be such discrimination in legislation.
I am moved to ask whether there are any precedents for such discrimination. I am moved to ask, more seriously, when students will next be discriminated against as a class as a result of this precedent. It is interesting, significant and right that the National Union of Students should be concerned about the proposed amendment.
But though there are many educational establishments in my constituency—indeed, because they are there—I must be concerned about my other constitutents.

If the Bill goes through with the amended clause my other constituents will be in an impossible position in terms of competing with students for privately let accommodation. They will be able to get security of tenure, whereas the students will not. Therefore, the landlord will always give priority and advantage to students. There is, of course, a pressing problem of student accommodation. It is not a problem that will arise for the first time this coming winter; it has existed in Edinburgh for some years. It is primarily the responsibility of the universities. They should take steps to remedy it and not rely on the privately let sector to take care of their students.
Not only will the Bill, as amended, materially affect the situation in substance; it will provide another pretext for evasion. If those of my constituents who are manual workers find that their let specifies "holiday", I see nothing to stop the let also specifying that the tenant is a student. That is another loophole that will have to be stopped. That may be what the landlord will wish to put into the contract of letting. The right hon. Member for Finchley will probably ask why those who seek the accommodation do not resist. The answer is the same as that which applies when a High Court judgment is suggested. The fact is that the people concerned are ignorant about their legal rights. Moreover, they are desperate for accommodation.
I welcome the Bill, but I say that we must keep this measure in perspective. It is a Bill which simply stops a gap. It leaves a lot of other gaps available. I hope that some of them will be stopped up in Committee. However, although we may try to avoid the gaps appearing they will reappear because we have a housing shortage. Given that situation, strong pressure will be put upon tenants to consent to a fraud on the part of the landlord so as to get accommodation.
The truth of the matter is that the private landlord is dying. I believe that it is impossible to resuscitate him. The duty of the Government should be to make his death throes as painless as possible for society. That means ensuring that dwellings are available to let within the city centres from housing associations, local authorities and co-operative societies. That would be a major reform.


which I hope to see effected as soon as possible.
An eccentric effect of the Bill is that the only category of tenant now devoid of any security of tenure is the local authority tenant. This is a disgraceful situation. It is true that local authorities are constrained by moral and political considerations in a way that private landlords are not, and that they normally behave responsibly. There are not many cases of local authorities irresponsibly evicting tenants. Nevertheless, local authority tenants have a right to say to us "If our security of tenure is recognised morally why is it not recognised legally?" I hope that the Government will find an early opportunity to recognise their security of tenure legally.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I should at once correct the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) on one matter. The local authorities are by no means the only landlords free of control. Apart from housing associations, there are Her Majesty's Forces, the National Health Service and certain other sectors of the Civil Service. Unfortunately, the same is true of the National Coal Board, one of the biggest property owners in the country. Insurance companies, too, are excluded. Over 55 per cent. of this type of accommodation even today is in the hands of housing associations and other such bodies.
It is time that the real purpose of the Bill was plainly stated. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made an attractive and moderate speech, leading for the Opposition, but mine will not be nearly so moderate or so kind. I am fed up with the poppycock we hear from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), who used to represent a Kensington constituency and who talks such nonsense about the wolves at the door. The wolves at the door in his constituency are a small number of Pakistani and West Indian immigrants who have created a most unfortunate situation in certain isolated cases.
Repeatedly, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has said that he wants to see the end of the private landlord. Apparently, he believes that no one

is entitled to own any house other than the one he lives in. A man can have £1 million worth of paintings, he can own anything he likes, but if it is his pleasure to own a few houses and, perhaps, to let one or two of them for the benefit of others, whether at reasonable rents or not, he is, according to the hon. Gentleman, behaving in a way which, in terms of capital, calls for decapitation. He has said it clearly enough on several occasions.

Mr. George Cunningham: Come on—be serious.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am being deadly serious. Labour's programme in 1973 said:
The next Labour Government will extend security of tenure to furnished tenants. This will be just a stop-gap until a programme of municipalisation has been carried out".
That was on page 47 of that document. The purpose of the present Bill is quite deliberate. It is to occasion immediately an acute shortage of furnished accommodation so that the municipal authorities may take over the properties, the task of municipalisation then being all the easier. The true purpose of this deliberate reduction in rented accommodation is to create scarcity so that the Labour Government may arrange for the take-over of the remnants of rented property. The task will be easily accomplished in that way.
Those of us who have had many years of experience of the law of landlord and tenant, as I have had and continue to have, realise only too well what the Socialist purpose is: it is a Socialist takeover of all remaining properties in the hands of landlords, excluding owner-occupied premises, in which case, in the Socialist nomenclature, the landlords are not landlords. A landlord, according to Socialist philosophy, is a person who rents houses, not the one which he occupies.
Another Socialist purpose is to restrict the movement of people from one local authority area to another. The Bill is skilfully designed to prevent the prospective tenant from moving out of the local authority area in which he is domiciled. Furthermore, it carefully ensures that those who really desire accommodation today cannot possibly have it. The difficulty today is for the newly married couple, the young professional person,


young people starting out in work—nurses, social workers, solicitors, doctors and all those who need to be in central accommodation. These people are not able to obtain council accommodation. There is no provision for them. None of them is able to afford to become an owner-occupier. They do not have families which could qualify them for accommodation provided by housing associations or societies. Not one of them, therefore, will have priority of any kind.
It is this Government's intention now to squeeze these people until it hurts and to make sure that they are unable to get any accommodation in our cities. Those who happen to be sitting tenants at present will willy-nilly be given protection. They are to be given protection notwithstanding the fact that in the current year there is a rent freeze so that the landlord is unable to put up the rent. Whether it is proper to do so or not, he cannot do it. And now the Socialists have the impertinence to say that a man is a wolf if he wants to get back his own house before the Socialists take it over.
I should have thought it ordinary common sense and fairness that a person should be free to decide whether he wanted his house to be the subject of such a take-over, or whether it should be done by stealth, behind his back and without proper notice.
The fact is that the Government are serving notice that it is their intention to take over all private rented accommodation in the event of their winning the next General Election. As practically no one qualifies for council flats, I want to point out exactly what the situation is. I have some knowledge of these matters in one respect. I have three or four flats which I let furnished. These are real furnished flats—that is, not the type of accommodation with which some have been concerned in this debate. What we have heard so far is that in North Kensington and Willesden, with which the Minister is so well conversant, in Edinburgh and in one or two other city areas, there is a certain amount of accommodation which is substandard. It is not correct to call it proper furnished accommodation. Much of it is in the hands of immigrant families who do not appreciate the law and in many cases do not appreciate the standards we would like to see.
I recognise that there is that problem. But the way to handle it is exactly the reverse of the policy being pursued by the Government. The way to handle it is to say that if people create accommodation from their homes or sell off or buy property which they are prepared to put on the market as furnished accommodation, provided it is furnished to a proper standard it can be let free of control. That way we shall get a great deal of it. That is what we need in central London, Edinburgh and other cities.
Let it not be said that I have ever been on the side of the landlord, because I led the rebellion many years ago against my own party in this House in favour of the professional tenants. I kept that rebellion going for a long time against the then Henry Brooke. I am not one of those who favours the landlord. I favour giving opportunities to young people in the cities to get accommodation. This Bill will not give them one extra room of any sort—quite the contrary. It will rapidly dry up the supply of accommodation.
We shall also be faced with the position—and this must be cleared up in Committee—of those who let their property for a period of six months certain, on a definite secured tenancy, intending to take up occupation thereafter. I have in mind members of the Civil Service and the Foreign Office, and university professors who go on sabbatical leave for six to nine months. As I read the Bill such people will not be able to go back and obtain occupation of their homes.
The Bill is a terrible muddle. It is a Bill by reference. It requires a skilled lawyer to read it. Every single line of it refers to the Rent Restriction Act 1968. I had to go back and relearn all my old Rent Acts just to read the Bill. That is unfair on the public and on this House, particularly when Labour hon. Members call a strike as a result of which we cannot get the papers with which we work.

Mr. Kaufman: Disgraceful!

Mr. Rees-Davies: Oh, yes they have. They know perfectly well that they could employ non-union labour and see that this House works properly. I do not see why we should be trying to work for the benefit of the nation without the tools to do the job.
The Government ought also to be sure that those serving in the Armed Forces overseas and others can get back into their homes.
There are two other points I wish to raise. The first concerns the tourist industry and in particular seaside resorts. I have spoken to many of my hon. Friends who represent seaside resorts and they all agree that, as it stands, this Bill will not do.

Mr. John Cordle: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend present. A great many other hon. Friends were present earlier. It is only because there is to be no vote on this Bill and because it is a relatively short debate that many of them have wandered away. But that does not mean that it is not a very serious matter to everyone. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) had wanted a two-day debate, no doubt he would have informed the Minister and we would have been pleased to have it. But there are other important matters to be dealt with later in the week.
It is not sufficient to say that those who indulge in holiday lettings may be able to recover their property. We must go further and ensure that they are able to do so. Those who regularly let throughout the summer feel that they are in grave danger about being able to let accommodation in the winter. There is a progressive amount of winter holiday letting in, for example, Bournemouth and Brighton. We have a considerable number of winter holiday lets in Thanet. Lettings are made to nurses and to other local hospital staff. Lettings are made to people who come from overseas—if not holiday lettings, then lettings for education purposes.
I am satisfied that the only way in which to deal with the question of the seaside resorts is to say that any boarding-house keeper, hotelier or other person engaged in holiday letting should register the fact and if it is a bona fide letting for that purpose he should be exempt for the whole 12 months.
The Bill is ill-conceived because it is basic to the Labour Party's philosophy.

If right hon. and hon. Members opposite decide in principle, as they have done, to end private landlordism and to ensure that the local authorities purchase all the houses and rooms in the private sector, what does it matter to right hon. and hon. Members opposite whether the Bill is well or badly drafted? The more badly drafted it is and the greater effect it has in drying up the supply of accommodation, the better opportunity it gives local authorities to take over the accommodation in Westminster, Edinburgh and in other cities and to do the necessary conversions and secure the lettings.
The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore), who is a councillor in Putney, has always advocated that the large houses on Wimbledon Hill should be taken over, split into flats and sold for council housing purposes. Does the Minister deny that that is part of Labour Party policy, as it has been part of the council's policy in Putney?
There has been no consultation with the chairmen of the rent tribunals. The Government have flown in the face of the Francis Committee, which the Labour Government set up in 1969, and which said that it ventured
to sound a solemn warning against giving security of tenure for furnished lets.
The committee's main recommendation has been flouted. There is not a jot of evidence to show that owners of furnished accommodation wish to evict their tenants. If they are forced by the Bill to keep them for ever, they will want to get rid of some of them now because they are nuisances and cause annoyance.
But in general the purpose of letting furnished accommodation is to have a regular turnover. People want to improve their accommodation. They want to let, not only to young people and others in this country, but to people from overseas. Much of the accommodation which can be obtained through the English Tourist Board is occupied by foreigners, not only in hotels, but in furnished flats and "digs" where they are able to stay for a few months before returning to their own countries. That is to be denied to them. The only evidence of harassment and extortion is in the immigrant accommodation, and this Bill will do nothing to cure it.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) that the Bill is extraordinarily complex and difficult for the layman to understand. I disagree with almost everything else he said. I want to make a plea for speed, brevity and clarity. It is therefore desirable that I should be speedy and brief.
As the background to the Bill there is an extremely difficult and complex housing situation. Because the housing shortage has appreciably worsened in recent years, the urgency of the Bill must be manifest to all. The relationship between landlord and tenant is often a good one but, unfortunately, as we have learnt to our cost over succeeding years, when that relationship goes wrong it goes badly wrong. That is why we have to make sure that the law provides for the good relationship and also for preventing the very bad relationship. That is where the Bill has a rôle to play. It is important to restate that we are dealing with the minority who abuse the situation because that may help us to approach the Bill and all the legislation that has preceded it and will no doubt follow it.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said. His contribution to our discussion was excellent. There is one overwhelming reason why the Bill is a necessity. It is no longer appropriate to approach a large section of our housing provision on the basis that nil security is acceptable to the person who wishes to have a permanent home. That is a contradiction in terms.
As the House knows—I have declared this interest previously—I have for some years helped the Royal Institute of British Architects to understand some of the complex matters which come before the House. To some extent I continue in that rôle, but I am glad that I do not have the responsibility of explaining the Bill to the institute. The references back to the 1968 Act are difficult, and it would be inappropriate to detail all the other loopholes and potential difficulties which may more appropriately be considered in Committee.
I wish to concentrate on two specific problems. The first is the question of resident landlords. The Bill is too weak.

I hope that when the Government approach this problem in Committee they will find some way of tightening it up. My noble Friend Lord Avebury in another place moved an amendment which was based on the Francis Committee's recommendation of the definition of a resident landlord with one sole tenant. It is the landlord with one sole tenant to whom we are concerned to give protection. It is not the landlord who happens to occupy one flat in a block of perhaps 50 or 100 flats with whom we are concerned, because the relationship there is commercial and there is no need for him to let part of a property for personal reasons.
There are alternative definitions which have been used in the Race Relations Act 1968 and the Housing Act 1969. I understand that there are objections to those, and no doubt we shall hear those objections in Committee. I prefer my noble Friend's definition. If we possibly can, we must deal with this problem before the Bill becomes law, otherwise there will be a loophole for the unscruplous landlord.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to the other matter to which I wish to draw attention—the definition of holiday letting. That is important for the south-west of England, and especially for Cornwall. I am not quite sure how we should deal with it. This is a difficult problem, which is made worse by the collapse of the house building programme over the last few years—in both the public and private sectors—in many rural areas which also have a tourist industry. In my constituency some tenants and landlords are in considerable difficulty because of lack of clarity in the law.
I fear that if the Bill is passed in its present form the law will be no clearer. Let me take as an example a landlord who, with perfectly good motives, let accommodation during the winter only to find that when the time came for his first holiday letting in the summer his tenants were still in occupation. He found it extremely difficult to evict them. He does not want any publicity in trying to evict them, and he is stuck with the situation. On the other hand, many tenants in my constituency are put at a disadvantage, since they have taken rented accommodation near to their jobs


and find themselves with no security of tenure whatever. This is an extremely difficult problem. Landlords and tenants—and even potential holidaymakers who at short notice find their holidays cancelled—would welcome a clarifying of the situation. Therefore, I very much hope that the Bill will be improved in Committee.
In the last few months the south-west of England, and Cornwall in particular, has become a housing stress area. The relationship between second homes, holiday lettings and such small reserves as we have of rented accommodation puts a great strain on our resources.
Finally, I am concerned about the speed with which the Bill will be brought into action once it has progressed through Parliament. I understand that the period of time was originally four weeks, but that that time scale has now been reduced to two weeks. What will happen in that two-week period? An extraordinarily difficult situation could arise, involving harassment and awkward relationships between landlords and tenants. Why could not the measure have been introduced the day after it received the Royal Assent? I understand that there is a precedent for this in the Protection from Eviction Act 1964. I hope that the Government will look at this matter again.
I should like to give the Bill a welcome. I recognise that it is most important that the measure is polished to a point where it can be understood not only by lawyers but by landlords and tenants, who have a right to be able to understand legislation that affects them.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: In the two or three minutes left for back-bench speeches I shall restrict myself to a couple of points, and I hope the House will forgive me for making them in staccato fashion.
It was suggested by the honourable and allegedly learned Gentleman the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) that the Bill would add no single unit of accommodation to those already available. This simply will not be true of a certain class or group of people in my constituency. Whether one adds security or takes it away does

not physically add any rooms to those available, but the problem we face in Inner London is that accommodation continues to be available, but not to the people who traditionally have lived in an area. Unless we preserve a significant part of the residential accommodation in Inner London for those people who cannot afford the colossally high prices of accommodation in Inner London, the services of London will not work. We shall be left with a situation in which only the very well off—and perhaps in our case the badly off—will continue to live in Inner London.
My second point relates to the definition of a "residential landlord". In view of the awful state of the text before the House—I do not blame the Government, for it is nothing to do with them, but it is the job of the administrative services of the House to get this right—I have tried to look at the amendment carried in the other place on the definition of a "residential landlord". I hope we shall take another look at this matter in Committee. I can think of several cases where the residential landlord would be undertaking a commercial operation perhaps with as many as half-a-dozen tenants in linked but totally self-contained accommodation where security would not apply because of the wording used in the amendment carried in the House of Lords.
I should have thought that what we should be aiming at in principle, although it might be more difficult to express it in language suitable to the statute, is that, where there are completely self-contained flats, occupation of one of those flats by the owner should not take away security from the occupants of all the other flats. I cannot think that securing that situation is beyond the skill of the parliamentary draftsmen.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: The form taken by this short, sharp debate has been predictable. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have a real and deep-felt concern for the homeless, for the young looking for a place of their own to start new families, and for the poor unable to compete economically, for housing in short supply, with those who are better off. The objectives which concern us are similar, but it is in seeking


a solution for these very human problems that divergence begins, and we have seen evidence of this in the debate.
On one side of the House there is a dogmatic belief, held with an almost religious fervour, that the solution lies in subjecting rented homes to rigid control, so that the conditions of those already in accommodation, whether it be good, bad or indifferent, in terms of their needs, remain frozen or, to use a more apt term, fossilised. On the other side of the House there is the equally strong belief that an excess of controls and the fossilisation of rented accommodation ultimately worsens the situation, since it both acts as a disincentive to the provision of housing by those able to provide it and extends little hope to those who will be seeking homes in the future.
I accept the sincerity of those who propound the view that in areas of housing stress especially it is necessary to provide a firm measure of protection to families living in the limited amount of rented property available. Such families are those most economically vulnerable and forced by circumstances both to live in dreadful conditions and to pay a disproportionately large part of their incomes for the doubtful privilege.
Those who work for Shelter, for SHAC, for the Child Poverty Action Group and for many similar bodies performing an invaluable task, have to contend, day in and day out, with the most heart-rending cases, and it is easy to understand why many of them believe fervently that there must exist a legal machinery whereby families which come to their notice can be protected both from financial exploitation and from the constant nagging fear and worry of losing that little which they call their homes. Any hon. Member who represents an inner urban area cannot be but intensely aware of these problems and responsive to the pleas of those working in the field.
I believe—I know that all my right hon. and hon. Friends are with me—that in such areas where the worst conditions exist a strong measure of help must be given to such families. However, whether the best kind of help is to say as a universal proposition to the majority of tenants in every area that their rents will be fixed and that they cannot be asked to leave except in the most extreme cir-

cumstances is very much open to question. It is a simple solution and, on the face of it, it has immediate appeal to those who have to contend with the desperate and almost impossible task of rehousing families where there is virtually a non-existent supply of decent alternative accommodation.
Some of us believe the problem to be far more complex than this kind of simple solution would lead one to believe. Insecurity is interwoven with the need to increase the supply of accommodation available and with the need to ensure that the supply is maintained in good and habitable condition. This is intricately bound up with the financial ability of the tenant to pay and the incentive for the owner to provide.
The last administration tried to give help to those families unable to pay fair rents by rent allowances in both the private furnished and unfurnished sectors. Perhaps the allowances were not generous enough, although I have heard little criticism of them. Perhaps they were not sufficiently widely known. Perhaps the scheme was not in operation long enough for its full benefits to be felt.
Whatever might be the shortcomings, we on this side of the House are firmly convinced that, given time and any necessary adjustments, rent allowances would remove a great deal of the landlord and tenant conflict which has bedevilled some areas of housing in the past. A landlord assured of a reasonable rent by a tenant given the ability to pay will be willing to keep his tenant and more owners will come forward with accommodation to let. Deny the owner a reasonable rent by law and, if he is an unscrupulous landlord, he will seek ways of evading that law, or, if he is a scrupulous landlord, he will simply cease to rent at the first opportunity.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rossi: No. I have very little time.
The supply of accommodation is the key to the whole problem. The Minister for Housing and Construction pins his hopes on the provision of accommodation by local authorities. I believe that he is living in a world of fantasy.
First, by its very nature local government, which is slow and cumbersome in


its movements by its reference from one committee to another, is far too cumbrous to give the help quickly where it is urgently needed.
Secondly, the scale of the operation is such that public resources simply are not available.
Thirdly—this point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—the present crushing tax and rate burden is such that it has little tolerance for a further heavy load.
Fourthly, whether we like it or not, we are undergoing the most tremendous economic difficulties, teetering on the edge of the precipice of national disaster, and it would not require much of an acceleration in public expenditure to push us over. Therefore, whether we like it or not—that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not is certain—we must recognise that in combating our housing problems we shall have to rely for many years to come on the private sector. Indeed, the dire necessity is to encourage, not discourage, the private sector.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have pointed to the diminishing supply of unfurnished rented accommodation over the post-war years almost with a sense of satisfaction and at the same time to a slight compensatory increase in furnished accommodation. The fact that unfurnished accommodation has been under incessant control or the threat of statutory control whilst furnished accommodation has not points to a lesson which many of my hon. Friends have underlined this evening.
Reference has been made to the Francis Report and to the solemn warning that it gives against the extension of rent controls and security of tenure. I invite the attention of the House to another report from which other lessons may be learned. I refer to the Milner Holland Report, published in March 1965 after the most extensive investigation that there has ever been into the effects of the Rent Acts upon housing stress areas.
At page 93 it will be seen that at the time of the survey the great majority of young people lived in privately rented accommodation. Nearly half of these, where the head of the family was under

30, lived in furnished accommodation and half in decontrolled unfurnished accommodation. Only 3 per cent. had controlled tenancies. By contrast, elderly people over 60 enjoyed the highest proportion of controlled tenancies. Two-thirds of these households had controlled tenancies, and three out of five had a whole house or flat to themselves. The young people were trapped in furnished accommodation in areas of housing stress in conditions of multi-occupation and overcrowding from which they were unable to escape because mortgages were outside their grasp. That was written 10 years ago.
The lesson to be drawn from Milner Holland is that controls were no help to those young people. Existing controls had frozen or fossilised accommodation in the hands of those it was in at the point in time at which the controls were imposed, namely, those over 60 by the time the report was published. These elderly people could not move out of their accommodation, even if it was too big for them, because all other unfurnished accommodation was similarly fossilised. The controls made no provision for the new families coming along. Indeed, were it not for the area outside housing control they would have had no homes at all, and what we are going to do under the Bill is to put that area under control.
This experience is not confined to the United Kingdom. If hon. Members care to look at essays by Professor Hayek of Salzburg, Professors Friedman and Stigler of Chicago, Dr. Sven Rydenfelt of Sweden and Bertrand de Jouvenel, they will see that wherever rent controls are imposed to combat housing problems as a temporary expedient, be it in Vienna, San Francisco, Stockholm or Paris, the results are identical. The controls remain as a permanent feature of legislation, perpetuate and increase the housing shortage, encourage immobility, foster dilapidation of housing stocks and erode production incentives.
The cumulative advice of all those reports—English and foreign—essays and experiences is formidable, and we ignore it at our peril. It is in the light of this advice and these experiences that we must examine the legislative proposals before us.
Clearly, we must be highly critical of any extension of control the result of


which would be to reduce the supply of badly needed accommodation. At the same time, we could not contemplate the complete abandonment of controls and of allowing the free play of supply and demand to produce rented accommodation as a commodity. The sudden and uncontrolled correction of years of distortion would cause an upheaval and hardship too great to contemplate.
Therefore, the legislative need is something else. There is a need, on the one hand, to protect the homes of economically vulnerable families in times and areas of stress. On the other hand, there is a need to enable the owner of property to feel reasonably free to regain what is his when it is fair and right that he should have it. Insufficient legal protection of the tenant leads to exploitation of the lower income sections. Too much protection leads to hardship amongst the poorer landlords, who form the majority, and makes them the victims of unscrupulous tenants.
The almost intractable problem is how to legislate so as to strike a fair balance between those competing needs, and so as to minimise the exploitation of the law either by bad landlords or by bad tenants, but in whatever direction one moves there will be a conflict with vested interest.
It is, therefore, to this extent that I welcome that part of the Bill which intends to give greater rights to landlords who let part of their own homes. It is here that the greatest social difficulties have arisen, and it helps no one to perpetuate a situation where people living in the same house are constantly at one another's throats. But whether the Bill goes far enough in this direction is another matter, and we shall wish to examine much more closely the proposition that up to one year's security of tenure may be given by rent tribunals in such circumstances.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) raised this point in his speech. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that Clause 2 is silent on the question whether Part VI of the 1968 Act applies. If that part of the 1968 Act applies, Clause 7 of this Bill will apply, extending the security of tenure that rent tribunals can give to

both furnished and unfurnished accommodation where there is a resident landlord.
The result will not be, as the hon. Gentleman said, to make it easy for landlords to get back their homes, but will make it much more difficult, because there will be an application to a rent tribunal, a year's security—which, under the 1968 Act, can be renewed for another year—and then another year, and then yet one year more, and it will not be until the rent tribunal has decided not to continue with this process that the landlord can go to the county court, and then wait three or four months before he knows whether the county court judge will give him a possession order.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: rose—

Mr. Rossi: I cannot give way, as there is insufficient time. The hon. Gentleman will recall that he did not give way to me during his speech.
I have also for a long time believed that there was a need for the fusion of the machinery for dealing with furnished and unfurnished accommodation. The distinction between the two is artificial and fraught with legal difficulty. Statute requires that to constitute a furnished letting the furniture must form a substantial part of the rental value. There is no accurate yardstick for determining what is substantial, and the law reports abound with marginal cases. Reference has been made in this debate to Woodward v. Docherty and it has been suggested by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden that that case represents the law as it has stood for a long time. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the case of Sagoo v. Goel, decided in 1969, where he will find that an entirely different position appertains. That was followed by rent tribunals for years.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: rose—

Mr. Rossi: I am sorry; I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman would not let me intervene on that point in his speech.
Whether it is right, as the Bill proposes, to transfer the jurisdiction in most cases from the rent tribunal to the rent officer, or the other way round, is another matter which we shall wish to examine. I at one time believed that the correct method of doing this, after fusion of the two kinds of rented accomodation, was to start with the rent officer, with an appeal to the


rent assessment panel, but after reflection I am not so sure whether this is the right solution. My present information is that rent officers, particularly in London, are overburdened. Recruitment is extremely difficult, despite advertisements in local government journals offering salaries between £3,500 and £4,000 a year for persons not required to show any qualifications. There are 20 advertisements for rent officers in today's daily Press.
There are delays of up to nine months between applications to rent officers and their finally reaching a decision. It seems to me in a sense absurd to place an even further burden on this administration which inevitably is undergoing a great strain at the moment. On the other hand, rent tribunals normally deal with a case within four to five weeks, and by their composition are well suited to deal with every legal or other complication which may arise. In addition, there is always a lay person present to make sure that there is fair play between the specialists. The Francis Report speaks highly of the way in which rent tribunals cope with the very real human problems which are presented to them.
Therefore, I must give notice to the Minister that this is a matter which we shall wish to probe very carefully in Committee and we shall wish him to come armed with the fullest possible information. Nothing would be worse than to create a situation where landlords and tenants would have to wait for months to have their grievances resolved. Nothing would bring greater discredit on the whole system, inevitably leading to self-help, abuse and all the problems that that entails.
This raises another wider issue. There is something inherently wrong in a situation where a landlord or tenant has to go to three separate types of legal machinery to deal with separate aspects of the same problem. If a tenant or a landlord wants the rent to be arbitrated, he goes to the rent officer or rent tribunal. Neither can deal with any of the attendant problems which frequently become immediately apparent. If there is a question of harassment, or no rent book, the tenant has to go to the magistrates' court via the town hall. If there

is a question of arrears of rent, or need for possession, or even of the validity of a notice to quit—and also the question of apportionment of rateable value which is important in furnished lettings where the rents are inclusive—the landlord or somebody has to go to the county court to have those issues determined.
All this leads to interminable delays, expense, frustration and a general feeling of inadequacy or unfairness in the legal system. I believe there is a pressing need for the establishment of a single tribunal acting with the minimum of pomp but with the maximum of informality and expedition which has the jurisdiction to deal with all these related matters—normally just the relationship of one man and another man under one roof. Nothing can be worse than the running sore of a dispute between landlord and tenant when all can be settled between them, often amicably, by an impartial and experienced arbitrator. Nothing would instil more confidence in landlords and a greater willingness to let than the feeling that they could rid themselves of very bad tenants quickly, before they suffered too much financial loss or damage to property.
There are many matters in the Bill which do not satisfy us but which I shall have to leave to Committee, including the whole range of discretionary and mandatory possession orders under Schedule 3 of the 1968 Act. In answer to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, it is not our wish to filibuster. We are concerned with the many complex legal problems raised by the Bill and, as we have heard, hon. Members on both sides are not satisfied either because the Bill does not go far enough or because it goes too far. All these matters will have to be probed and if amendments made in another place are to be reversed, that will have to be discussed as well. I should be sorry if the Bill took longer in Committee than the hon. Member would like, but we have our job to do.
The Milner Holland Report said:
The supply of privately rented accommodation in Greater London has diminished and is still diminishing fast. This trend will not be halted, still less reversed, unless investors can be assured that, provided their properties are properly maintained and managed, they will be free from the hazards of political uncertainty and able to obtain an economic return.


This plea appears in Milner Holland:
Housing has for too long been the sport of political prejudice. The need now is for a common approach to the problem and for a fully considered development of policy based on an understanding of the whole housing situation and purged of irrelevant prejudice against landlords, tenants or any other groups".

9.42 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): By my reckoning, this Bill marks the 18th fulfilment of an election manifesto pledge since the Government came to office. Eighteen pledges fulfilled in 18 weeks is not bad going. This pledge is the fourth on the Department of the Environment's list, a pledge which appeared in our manifesto as follows:
We shall extend protection from eviction, to tenants of furnished accommodation.
It sets the seal on Dick Crossman's historic rent and tenancy reforms. The Bill fills a gap which he always lamented that he had never filled himself. As one who worked as Dick Crossman's assistant for a number of years, I like to feel that in a small way I am carrying on his work.
The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) justifiably lamented the shortage of documents. I deeply regret the reasons for this although I would dispute her contention that it is the Department's job to provide the documents in the Vote Office. If it is, almost every Department in the last administration fell down on the job. I remember having to photocopy all the enactments relevant to the Pakistan Bill when I served on the Standing Committee.
A number of hon. Members referred to the impact on landlord and tenant law of the case of Docherty. The right hon. Lady implied that that case made the Bill unnecessary. But such cases have to be fought through the courts at considerable expense and, if obtainable, with the necessary backing of organisations like Shelter, and the outcome is doubtful. The Bill is providing security of tenure, not as something to be won after a legal battle but as an undisputed right for the furnished tenant.
The right hon. Lady and I were involved in a dialogue on this matter. She was worried about what would happen to landlords of unfurnished accommodation who had a periodic tenancy. I completely acknowledge that the sheer mess

with which we have to deal in terms of the Bill in its present form makes it very difficult to track this down. However, I refer the right hon. Lady to Schedule 2, 5A(5)(b) for the reference that she requires and to which, no doubt, we can return in Committee.
The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) both asked for a new subsidy structure to follow this legislation. I am glad that both sides of the House have such a thirst for the implementation of the policies of the present Government. I promise both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that this restructuring of subsidies is coming. The first stage will be in the forthcoming Rates and Subsidies Bill, which will be published soon and which is based on our consultation document recently issued.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central also referred to a specifically Scottish point. I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on an outstandingly good speech but also on the fact that he spoke for Scotland. The Scottish nationalists were simply absent. Furnished tenants in Scotland, 46,000 of them, were abandoned by the Scottish nationalists, and it was my hon. Friend who spoke for them.
The Bill as drafted prevents security being extended to tenants in traditional Scottish tenements where landlords live in those tenements. That was the burden of my hon. Friend's point. He is perfectly right. That is a lacuna in the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland appreciates this problem and proposes to table an appropriate amendment to Schedule 2(2). Flats within tenement buildings will be specifically recognised as self-contained dwellings, where tenancies can attract security under the Bill. I am sure that Scotsmen will be very grateful to my hon. Friend for making this point in the debate and allowing me to clarify the benefit which this legislation will provide for furnished tenants in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central, supported by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler), also voiced fears about the way in which the exemptions that we are providing for holiday lettings could be exploited. My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman


were both worried about the dodges which would allow people to get round this provision. I assure them that this kind of dodge will not work under the Bill. The words
The purpose of the tenancy
in Clause 2(1)(bbb) should effectively prevent abuse of the kind to which my hon. Friend referred. This does not mean the purpose or the intention of the landlord or tenant individually, but the facts behind the tenancy agreement entered into by both parties. The fact that a landlord calls a letting a holiday letting, or persuades the tenant to agree that it is such a letting, will not prevent a court from determining on the basis of the surrounding facts whether a residential tenancy exists.
The purpose of the letting is a question of fact to be decided by the court on evidence, and in determining which the court would doubtless take into account such matters as the location, the likelihood of a person taking such a dwelling for a holiday, the length of the tenancy and the conduct of the parties. It is not a question which can be determined simply by the label given to the tenancy by the landlord or the tenant.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central, who covered almost the entire gamut of the Bill, in what he said about student lettings. My constituency contains many thousands of students, living in halls of residence and private lettings. I support him in being certain that it is necessary for us to get rid of the amendment which another place inserted into the Bill.
My hon. Friend also referred to the need to provide security of tenure for local authority tenants. I assure him that we have not forgotten this. The Government have been in office four and a half months and we are not doing too badly in our housing legislation. I am sure that in the years that lie ahead my hon. Friend will be well satisfied with further legislation that we bring forward. I assure him that enfranchisement of local authority tenants is on our list of objectives. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction would not tolerate a Labour administration which did not provide such enfranchisement. I give my hon. Friend that assurance, even

though it relates to eventual rather than immediate action.
The hon. Member for Bodmin was concerned about the delay in commencement of the Bill. I agree with him that any gap in this respect causes concern, but he will realise that we are going to accept and retain in the Bill an amendment, inserted in another place, which halves the delay in commencement. I say to the hon. Gentleman, without being over-bureaucratic, that it is necessary that there should be some time between Royal Assent and the coming into force of the Bill to enable its provisions to be generally known, and this is particularly important in a Bill as complicated as this. The Government intend to use the short period before the Bill comes into force to mount a vigorous publicity campaign to explain the facts in simple language, and to ensure that landlords and tenants know how they stand under the law. My hon. Friend the Minister launched that campaign today.
Before I conclude my references to points raised in the debate I should say that what was said by the Opposition Front Bench did not go unnoticed on the Government Front Bench. Hon. Members opposite seemed to be consumed in pessimism. We noted what they said about the ability of the public sector to provide the necessary housing in this country. That pessimism is fully borne out by the Opposition's record when in office, but we, on the other hand, are determined to reverse the disastrous trend in local authority housing for which the Opposition were responsible. I am happy to say that the results of our policies are already beginning to show, and that the upturn will continue.
I recognise the sincere concern of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) about the increased burden of administration which the Bill will impose. We are well aware of the problems involved, but we are also optimistic in that while extra work will be required because of the introduction of the Bill, at the same time the burden on the rent assessment services will soon be alleviated by the abolition of the rent scrutiny boards, and that will provide a good deal of spare capacity for constructive activity.
Hon. Members have voiced views about various inadequacies in the Bill, and I accept that they have some justification


for doing so. But nobody, except possibly the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), who is idiosyncratic in his approach to many facets of life, could call the Bill vindictive. It carefully and rightly preserves rights for resident landlords. Now we shall be able to see whether all the under-occupied owner-occupied accommodation, which the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) often speaks about—we lament his absence—will be forthcoming. The Bill also carefully and rightly protects those who need to live abroad for a period and then come back and repossess their homes. We are fully conscious of the necessity for this protection and we have taken pains to help these people.
Further, the Bill carefully and rightly protects those planning ahead for a home which they mean to occupy when necessary. We recognise that the retirement Chamber along the way has had its views on this matter and we shall try to improve its amendment regarding this subject.
The good and well-intentioned landlord has nothing to fear from the Bill. Indeed, he emerges with his rights enhanced. At the same time, at long last the furnished tenant will emerge, when the Bill is passed, as a statutory tenant with his status guaranteed by statute.
This is very necessary, for these are tenants who often live in the worst accommodation, desperate for a home, often—far too often—exploited in their desperation. These are the legions of the lost in the deserts of the inner cities. I represent an inner city constituency. Fourteen per cent. of my constituents live in furnished accommodation. I heartily declare an interest in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—one of the most discerning of my hon. Friends, which means that he is exceptionally discerning—somehow visualised that it would be necessary at this stage for me to refer to my constituency. I was saying that 14 per cent. of my constituents live in furnished accommodation. I had a letter from one of them only today which states:
I am living in a one room flat with my granddaughter who is now married and staying with me and her husband is staying with his mother as there is no room here for him. My granddaughter is having her first child in 8 or

10 weeks time. The state of the house is getting on both our nerves with mice climbing about and also getting on to the bed. We are sharing a bathroom with another four, also a kitchen which nobody takes a turn to keep it clean. I wonder if you can help me to get a house. The landlord does not permit kids here. I really do not know what to do.
Is that the tenant who harasses his unsuspecting and unprotected landlord about whom the Tory Party laments so often?
These tenants often live in fear. They pay ludicrously high rents and are even afraid, until this legislation, to apply to the tribunal for a reduction. The reason for this is that for them even squalor and exploitation are preferable to no home at all. When they use the rights they possess they are harassed and victimised to an intolerable extent.
The Bill, necessary as it is, and proud as we are to introduce it, will not create paradise for furnished tenants. It will not transform often dank and squalid quarters into bijou residences. It will not rid them of oppressive conditions against pets and, too often, even against children. But it will help to redress the balance. It will, perhaps, give furnished tenants statutory rights and provide them with a chance of emancipation. It is up to us in the House to let these tenants know of their rights. It is up to us to assist them to exercise their rights.
Above all, it is up to the House, with all due speed, to which the hon. Member for Bodmin rightly referred, and I trust with the co-operation of both sides, to hasten the Bill to the statute book and so to give to many thousands who too often have to live their daily lives in gloom and despair the hope that Parliament really cares about them and their problems.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Sainsbury: I hope that any hon. Member who speaks on this subject speaks with due humility. One thing that has been recognised is that our housing situation is not satisfactory. I fear that Governments over the last century will have to take some of the blame, because of errors of commission and omission, for our present situation.
I suggest that we should approach this Bill by looking for the balance of expected gain against potential disadvantage. I fear that in that respect we shall


find the Bill in its present form somewhat lacking in balance. If we can all approach the Committee stage with due humility, I hope that we shall be able so to amend the Bill as to put back the balance and avoid the risk that there will be a loss.

Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter which is of some concern to the

Question accordingly agreed to.

House. We have had a very important Bill, in the middle—

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 6.

Division No. 68.]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
O'Malley, Brian


Armstrong, Ernest
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Ovenden, John


Atkins, Ronald
Freeson, Reginald
Owen, Dr. David


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
George, Bruce
Palmer, Arthur


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Golding, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bates, Alf
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Parry, Robert


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Pendry, Tom


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Phipps, Dr. Colin


Bishop, E. S.
Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Hatton, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Booth, Albert
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Heffer, Eric S.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh re, E)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S.&amp;Sh'ditch)
Horam, John
Rowlands, Edward


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter(S'pney&amp;P'plar)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Silverman, Julius


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Skinner, Dennis


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Small, William


Clemitson, Ivor
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I, EdgeHI)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Cohen, Stanley
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Snape, Peter


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Colin
Spearing, Nigel


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
John, Brynmor
Spriggs, Leslie


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Stallard, A. W.


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Cryer, G. R.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Stott, Roger


Cunningham, G.(Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Judd, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Gerald
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Davidson, Arthur
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Tierney, Sydney


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamborn, Harry
Tinn, James


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Tyler, Paul


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lee, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dormand, J. D.
Lomas, Kenneth
Watkins, David


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Watt, Hamish


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael
White, James


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Mackenzie, Gregor
Whitlock, William


Edelman, Maurice
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Edge, Geoff
McNamara, Kevin
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marquand, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Meacher, Michael
Woodall, Alec


Evans, John (Newton)
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Moonman, Eric
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Flannery, Martin
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ford, Ben
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Forrester, John
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Jamer A. Dunn.




NOES


Bell, Ronald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Emery, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm
Mr. John Cordle and


James, David
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Rees-Davies.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords] and the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

10.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill is the successor to the Bill which failed to complete its passage last Session. It was the measure introduced by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on 29th November 1973 in his then capacity as Minister for Aerospace and Shipping. It had substantial support from all sides of the House and Parts I to III, which remain substantially unchanged, were fully examined in Committee. The contents of the new Bill are accepted by the industry. It was welcomed in another place on 20th May and made a speedy passage there with only minor Government amendments.
This time we have omitted the earlier provision in relation to the delegation of certain statutory marine survey work. Anxiety was expressed in certain quarters about those items which are concerned with the safety of ships and those in them being passed over to a non-Government agency. The dropping of these items should not be taken as a reflection on the capability or integrity of Lloyd's Register which is deservedly held in high esteem both in this country and throughout the world.
I propose to go ahead, subject to proper consultation, with the delegation of certain other items, principally tonnage measurement, less vital to safety than the provisions we have dropped.
The Bill contains provisions to enable the safety regulation of submersibles. It amends certain of the provisions of the 1970 Merchant Shipping Act relating to offences by seamen. I shall have more to say about this later.
Part I arises indirectly from the "Torrey Canyon" incident in 1967. This made it clear that the then existing limits for oil pollution compensation were totally inadequate for the new era of super-tankers. The Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation con-

vened a conference in 1969 which adopted the International Convention of Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. This improved upon the earlier compensation limits, but not sufficiently.
A second conference was therefore convened by IMCO in 1971 which adopted a further convention setting up an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage. This was open only to parties of the 1969 convention. Part I of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the fund convention. We hope to be among the first to do so. The fund is to be financed by receivers, in contracting countries to the 1971 convention, of 150,000 tons or more per annum of crude and fuel oil by sea. Most of this will be imported but coastal transport of oil will also be taken into account. The fund will compensate victims in contracting countries of oil pollution damage caused by identified ships where the shipowner is not fully liable or fails to pay.
The fund will also relieve shipowners of part of their liability under the 1969 convention. Compensation will be payable under the fund up to £15·7 million for any one incident and this will be capable of being raised by the fund assembly to almost £31·4 million. Within these limits there will be no charge to the public purse. The 1969 and 1971 conventions will together provide an interlocking system of compensation fund, shipowners' liability and compulsory insurance. Their coming into force will depend on their ratification by a sufficient number of States receiving a prescribed amount of oil in the preceding calendar year and which have a stated minimum of tanker tonnage. We understand that a number of countries have already introduced legislation for this purpose.
Part II of the Bill will enable us to ratify certain amendments to the 1954 Oil Pollution Convention. This relates to the arrangement and size of individual tanks in oil tankers. These amendments also have their origins in the "Torrey Canyon" incident. The United Kingdom can claim credit for initiating the long and detailed IMCO discussions which produced them. The hon. Member for Henley has certainly played a part in those talks. They are highly technical and lay down broadly that side and centre


cargo tanks must not exceed certain maximum sizes and that the hypothetical spillage of oil in the assumed worst case of damage shall not exceed 30,000 cubic metres or, for the mammoth tankers, 40,000 cubic metres. These arrangements have since been confirmed by the Marine Pollution Conference held at Church House last autumn.
The urgency of introducing these measures was recognised in IMCO and the amendments require them to be incorporated in all ships for which building contracts were signed after 1st January 1972 or, in the absence of a building contract, whose construction was started after 30th June 1972, and for all ships delivered after 1st January 1977.
Shipping and shipbuilding industries were immediately warned of our intention to legislate at the first opportunity, and the Bill therefore provides for retrospective application as necessary. We shall be consulting other Governments before putting various provisions of Part II into effect so as not to penalise our own tanker fleet and so that the measures against offending tankers will have the maximum effect.
Part III provides powers to protect United Kingdom shipping and trading interests. In recent years certain Governments have taken measures to favour their own shipping. The best known is probably flag discrimination where a country's own ships are given preference in the carriage of exports. Another example is the regulation of freight rates to enhance exports at the expense of imports. We have long upheld the principle of competition in seaborne trade as the best means of providing fair and efficient services. Therefore, we deplore those practices. Such action is regrettably on the increase to the detriment of our shipping lines and trading interests. While we have no wish to follow suit, we believe that it is essential to protect these interests from interference by other Governments. The United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping and the British Shippers Council support the taking of contingency powers, a course which a number of other maritime countries have seen fit to follow. We have had discussions with our opposite numbers in Western Europe.
We expect the exercise of the powers to be extremely rare. Moreover, we should not use them without first trying commercial and diplomatic negotiations. But they would be there and would be used in the last resort. They would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and the House would have to approve our intention at the time.
Subsection (7) of Clause 14 provides for consultation with shipping and trading interests and
such other interests as may be appropriate".
The identity of those "other interests" will obviously depend on the nature of the damage threatened and the proposed action. In appropriate cases they could well include, for example, trade unions and harbour authorities.
Hon. Members may be aware of the recent United Nations conference in Geneva which concluded a Convenion on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences. We are very much in favour of the idea of such a code provided it is universally acceptable and based on fully commercial and competitive relationships. Regrettably the convention in this instance has as one of its central provisions the concept of cargo reservation, which is contradictory to the principle of freedom of choice, and the United Kingdom was forced to oppose it.
We have a great deal of sympathy and support for those countries, particularly developing countries, which are trying to build up their own merchant fleets and we shall obviously consider, as we reassess our shipping policies in the light of the United Nations conference, what practical steps we can take. I should make it clear that those who pursue legitimate aims by reasonable means have nothing to fear from the powers in the Bill.
I come to Part IV. When the earlier Bill was being debated, the then Minister announced his intention to introduce legislation to enable the making of regulations to ensure the safe operation of submersibles. Hon. Members will recall the accident to "Pisces III" and the prolonged rescue operation connected with it. We have been able to incorporate such provisions in Part IV. They are entirely enabling provisions and depend on the making of regulations. The Department hopes to begin consultations at the earliest opportunity.
We are dealing with a rapidly developing technology, and the powers have been drafted to enable the Department to react quickly to developments. I am happy to acknowledge the responsibility of the industry and the high standards applied by it. We have no intention to lay down rigid controls at the outset. We shall start with a system of registration so as to gain the information we require and we shall then keep pace with the development of the industry itself.
The definition of "submersible apparatus" is drawn deliberately widely and will extend even to diving operations from United Kingdom registered ships anywhere in the world. This will remove a weakness in the present legislation on diving.
There will inevitably be areas in which the powers in Part IV will overlap with those of my right hon. Friends responsible for energy and employment who are concerned respectively with operations on the Continental Shelf and in territorial waters. There is already, and will continue to be, close consultation and cooperation between the three Departments concerned so as to ensure that common standards are maintained and that the maximum expertise is concentrated on whatever problems arise.
I refer next to Part V of the Bill. Clause 18 contains detailed provisions aimed at broadening the constitution of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses to include a member from the Isle of Man—the commissioners are responsible for lighthouses there—and would make available a broader range of experience to the commissioners than they have at present.
The most significant provision in Part V, however, is Clause 19, a new feature of the Bill which amends Sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 relating to offences by seamen. Those 1970 provisions which followed closely the recommendations of Lord Pearson's court of inquiry set up following the seamen's dispute in 1966, helped to modernise earlier provisions dating from the last century. The time has now come to make a further advance consistent with the general approach of the Government to industrial relations—an approach which places emphasis on conciliation rather than reliance on legal sanctions.
Misconduct at sea is at present dealt with under the provsions of the general criminal law, the offences in Sections 27 to 31 of the 1970 Act and the disciplinary offences regulations made under Section 34 of that Act. Representatives of the seamen have consistently taken the view that Sections 28 to 31 are unnecesary having regard to other sanctions available, and an undertaking was given both by the previous Labour Government and by the previous administration to review those sections. That review was begun last year, and we have now reached the position of being able to propose certain changes which can be implemented in the Bill. These changes are set out in Clause 19 and I will deal with each of them in turn.
There is no difference of opinion among seafaring interests that Section 27, which creates an offence in relation to misconduct endangering a ship or persons on board, is an important provision which must be retained, and it is indeed proposed to update the maximum fine on summary conviction under that section from £200 to £400.
Section 29 deals with disobedience of a single lawful command and Section 31 deals with absence without leave at the time of sailing. It should be noted that continued or concerted disobedience or neglect of duty is covered by Section 30 of the 1970 Act and serious misconduct by Section 27. In addition, absence without leave would occur on shore and could be adequately dealt with as a normal industrial matter or by use of the civil remedies. I have therefore decided that both Sections 29 and 31 should be repealed.
Section 30 deals with continued or concerted disobedience or neglect of duty. It is proposed to amend this section so that combinations which are treated as criminal offences apply only when a ship is at sea.
Lastly, the upper limit of the fine which may be imposed on seamen for a disciplinary offence by regulations made under Section 34 of the 1970 Act is to be increased from £10 to £20. That is solely for the purpose of dealing with the serious offence of smoking in prohibited places on tankers which might in certain circumstances be dealt with under other provisions of the Act.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I have read carefully the speeches that were made in another place. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that specific case of smoking on tankers and that any other case of endangering a ship would be dealt with by other legislation than by the 1970 Act?

Mr. Shore: I confirm the second point. I will ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to deal with the first point when he replies.
It should be noted that Section 28 of the Act, which deals with drink and drugs, remains.
I emphasise that I have brought forward these changes after consultation with both sides of the fishing and shipping industries and we are satisfied that they may be made without risk to safety.
Sections 27, 28, 30 and 34 will remain in force and give ample statutory provisions to deal with misconduct at sea, particularly as the criminal law is available to deal with more serious misconduct.
The safety of the ship and crew is a matter of the utmost importance. All interested parties recognise the need for a special framework of authority on board ship and we note the importance attached by those responsible for the conduct of ships to the sections of the 1970 Act which I have mentioned remaining in force. Some believe, however, that good management and industrial relations between employer and employee would adequately deal with the situation without use of the criminal law.
Accordingly, as has been announced, we are establishing two working parties—one for the fishing industry and one for the Merchant Navy—with the following terms of reference which have just been agreed with both industries:
To review the disciplinary reequirements on board merchant ships"—
and in the other case fishing vessels—
with particular reference to the framework of authority required in modern conditions in the interests of safety, good shipboard relations and effective operations, and to make recommendations.
All the relevant interests have agreed to serve on these groups which will begin work shortly and will undertake a round

of visits to ports to canvass opinion and study conditions on the spot.
The Government believe that all concerned will approach these studies without prejudice and with a constructive attitude. I believe that they will produce a modern code of relationships which will keep this country in the forefront of the development of labour relations, with the necessary legal backing, relating to employment at sea.
I commend the Bill to the House as a valuable and important measure. In so far as much of it is unchanged from the substance of the earlier Bill, I trust that those parts will find ready acceptance by hon. Members. The new Parts IV and V are largely uncontroversial and serve to make the Bill a still more valuable and necessary piece of legislation than was its predecessors.
It is right for me in conclusion to pay the customary and deserved tribute to the shipping industry and all those who work in it and all those who are contributing to the prosperity of this country, with particular reference to the contribution made by the Merchant Navy.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I assure the Secretary of State for Trade that we welcome the Bill. He will not expect me to say differently since he well knows that it is largely a Conservative Bill. As he said, the Bill takes a great step forward and seeks to deal with the prevention of pollution and to take all intelligent and preventive steps to deal with the situation.
I am only sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is not present this evening to hear me pay a tribute to his work, since he took so much trouble in steering this measure through its Committee proceedings in the previous Parliament. I wish to pay tribute to his devoted work and to the civil servants in preparing the original Bill. The only other personal observations I wish to make is to refer to the appalling tragedy that befell three of the officials in the Department where I served. I refer to Mr. Brigstoke, Mr. Meekin and Mr. Davies who were killed in the DC10 accident.
The Bill contains a number of differing matters and I have only a few observations to make on them. The provisions


of Part II are particularly important. It will be difficult for us to implement Part II to prevent ships entering British ports if we are not to run the risk that other countries may not move as fast as we have done in taking retaliatory action. There will be need for caution in this situation.
Part III of the Bill is one of the areas in which we were reluctant to take power. We would rather have seen a climate of world shipping in which these powers were held in reserve and where they would not have been necessary as part of the statute law. In view, however, of the way in which events in the world have moved, it seems appropriate that we should put ourselves in a position of readiness, however reluctant we might be to move further along this road.
Part IV deals with the delegation of surveys, and here there is a difference in that the Bill does not go quite as far as we envisaged. I was never persuaded that there was any danger in going as far as the previous Bill intended, and certainly it was our intention to continue along the lines set out in that Bill. During its consideration, I do not think that the suggestions that were made were based upon substance.
I am delighted that regulations to deal with submersibles are now part of the legislation. I was deeply involved in ensuring that those powers were included in the original Bill. I thought that it was necessary to empower the Government to act in the way that the Bill provides.
As the right hon. Gentleman has said, this is a non-controversial Bill. I am glad to think that it will soon be on the statute book. I know that the House will welcome it.

10.31 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: We are sailing through well-charted waters, certainly for those of us who sat for many hours in Committee considering the previous Bill which, unfortunately, came to nothing. However, I wish to ask one or two questions about the Bill as it is now drafted.
My first question relates to Clause 11. Will the Minister confirm that he has taken on board the point that we must not develop the regulations in such a way

that there is any disadvantage to British shipping in terms of making existing ships obsolete or of insisting on standards which involve over-complicated or expensive designs? We all want to avoid pollution by oil spills, but we must not get matters out of perspective. After all, the "Torrey Canyon" disaster was a navigational disaster, and vast pollution would have resulted even if the ship had been constructed to any foreseeable standards under the Bill. This measure would not have prevented the pollution in that case.
As regards Part III, obviously we want to see everything possible done on behalf of the British Merchant Navy to avoid the unfortunate effects of flag discrimination. I am always unhappy to see a British-built, British-owned and British-manned ship flying the Monrovian ensign for no other reason than the tax advantages which result from it. I want to see a good, well-manned British Merchant Marine which is British and proud of it.
I do not want to be cantankerous or controversial, but as regards Clause 14 I hope that the power to refuse the admittance of ships to United Kingdom ports will not be used for political purposes. I hope that it will make no difference if, for example, after this measure has become law, a ship comes up Southampton Water which is South African, Chilean or any other nationality like that.
Clause 19 makes amendments in the provisions relating to offences committed by seamen. As a general point, it may be that this House would be wise in these days of inflation not simply to make a monetary increase in fines only to find that the legislation is not amended for many years, by which time the fines have become derisory. I should prefer to see fines stipulated as a proportion of a day's pay rather than have a specific fixed sum.
The Minister told us that he was setting up inquiries into disciplinary matters. Does he agree that, whatever is done and whatever experiments are made, we must not detract from the authority of the master? Life at sea is very different from life ashore. A happy ship is one where the master is a firm and fair man known by everyone to be in charge.
In these days masters have the minimum of regulations to support them.


Those who understand shipping will know that masters have little to support them except their own personalities. We detract from the authority of the master only to the great disadvantage of seamen of all ranks in our Merchant Navy.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not intend to detain the House long.
I should like to put a number of points to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who will be replying. The first concerns submersible apparatus. Clause 17(1)(a) provides that
The Secretary of State may make regulations—
(a) for the safety of submersible and supporting apparatus".
When we had the possible tragedy of the "Pisces" a point that was brought to our notice was the close proximity of vessels and aircraft carrying members of the media in the area where, in difficult circumstances, rescue vessels were attempting to transmit messages to men many fathoms below the sea.
I appreciate that as regards our own waters it will be possible for the Secretary of State to make regulations, but what will happen concerning the open sea? What powers are we to seek with other countries to prevent vessels, which are quite properly present to serve the public interest, interfering with the safety of rescue operations which are taking place?
I am in general agreement with and welcome the remainder of the Bill. It was in fact mainly the work of the previous Government.
I welcome particularly those parts of the Bill which deal with the alleviation of certain of the penal clauses relating to the National Union of Seamen. I spent may hours debating this matter both in Committee and on Report in 1970. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who had to suffer a lot of the argument in other rooms outside this Chamber, has now found it possible to make certain alterations in anticipation of what we hope will be the outcome of the findings of the two working parties.
I am struck by what the national fisheries officer of the Transport and General Workers Union said about the work of port disciplinary committees representing owners and unions in the

ports. In many ways a port committee has a more dreadful sanction over people working in the industry than has any legislation which we may put through this House. It has the power not only of suspending a fisherman for one, two or three voyages, thereby incurring a greater fine than he would have suffered under the provisions of the 1970 Act, but the ultimate sanction of suspending him sine die, which means that he loses his opportunity to fish.
It is far better that there should be voluntary agreement and disciplinary methods within the fishing industry and, one hopes, within the merchant marine than a system of fines which can be so encrusted with legislation that with the passage of time a situation may develop, as in the past, in which a man has appeared before a magistrates' court for a disciplinary offence, his fine has been paid by the ship's runner and he has been shipped aboard the same vessel to go out on the following tide all within the space of 48 hours.
Indeed, I commend to the House the words of Viscount Runciman of Doxford who, when talking about Clause 19 and the working parties, said:
We all know that a happy ship is a good ship; we know even more, to our cost (literally at times) that an unhappy ship is not and never can be. So it follows that if the disciplinary provisions are to be effective and a source, as they should be, of harmony and not discord, it is essential that they be acceptable, both to those responsible for maintaining discipline (which is, I think inevitably, in the first place the master of the vessel at any one time) and those who are subject to it. This calls for the careful consultation which the Minister has assured us is going to be given. I hope therefore that before they become the law of the land, whatever disciplinary provisions are suggested for incorporation in a future Act of Parliament will, so far as ever possible, be the result of general agreement and will be regarded by all the interested parties as just and necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th May, 1974; Vol. 351, c. 1271–2.]
I hope that as a result of the setting up of the working parties all sections of our seagoing industry which may on occasions have common experiences will come together for joint consultations. I hope too that we shall get away from the antiquated procedure of fines and harsh discipline and replace it by a healthy system of industrial relations based upon mutual respect and sanctions that are recognised and approved by the industry as a whole.


I particularly welcome the terms of reference of the working parties, and I hope that the Bill will be given a speedy passage through the House.

10.42 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I need detain the House for only a short time.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was able to welcome substantially his own measure. I think that we have improved upon it and I am glad that he spoke of it in the terms that he did. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's cautionary words that certain areas covered by Parts II and III of the Bill are exploratory, and we shall have to see how we go.
As regards Part III which relates to the protection of our shipping and trading interests, I must tell the House that we have no desire to engage in any sort of confrontation with anybody. We want an orderly system to prevail, and we are at the same time anxious that the developing world should have the opportunity to develop its own merchant fleets. We wish to give every possible encouragement to this, consistent with the principles that we have spelled out in the Bill. I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the introduction of the provisions relating to submersible apparatus.
The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) posed one or two questions. He asked whether the construction of British ships would be disadvantaged by these provisions. I assure him that there is no fear of that. Shipping interests have been aware of this situation since 1971 and they have made ample provision for it. I believe that only one vessel could be adversely affected, and we have not had any representations about the retrospective nature of the provisions.
With regard to Clause 14, I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is not our intention to engage in any sort of flag discrimination. I hope he will accept this assurance.
I now come to the point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on Clause 19. I do not think I could accept his proposition that fines should be a proportion of wages rather than a fixed sum. It would be a tremendous innovation in

the criminal law if that were done. I do not know where that precedent would lead to, but it seems to me that it would not be acceptable and therefore I must say that we shall have to reject that concept.
The new clauses that we have introduced and the working parties that will examine afresh the whole area of discipline on board ship are very important, and I am delighted that we have the good will of both sides of industry for these working parties. Even those who indicated displeasure—namely, the trawler owners—about certain aspects of the new provisions which we were introducing have indicated their willingness to serve on the working party.
Indeed, we have already had a meeting to establish the terms of reference of the working party, and it has got off to a very good start indeed. The terms of reference are
To review the disciplinary requirements on board merchant ships and fishing vessels with particular reference to the framework of authority required in modern conditions in the interests of safety, good shipboard relations and effective operation, and to make recommendations.
They are wide terms of reference, but it is quite remarkable, having regard to some of the mythology which has arisen in this industry, that the people concerned have got round a table and have made such an effective start. My right hon. Friend and I are very pleased indeed about that. The great advantage is that they are able to discuss these differences around a table rather than engage in lengthy documentation, which as far as we can see would simply entrench the differences and we would get absolutely nowhere.
I hope—I cannot promise—that they will be able to resolve some of the difficulties about which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) feels very strongly, as indeed does the union of which he is a member. However, I do not think it would be helpful for me to comment at this stage upon the points he raised in his speech because all this is to be covered by the working party's deliberations and it would not be right for me to anticipate the work that it will do. I want the working party to arrive at conclusions which are acceptable to all sides of the industry.
I have to face the fact that if there is a possibility—I hope it is no more than that—that the working party will not be able to do that, the Government will have to make a political judgment as to what is to happen. I am hopeful, however, that having regard to the start that has been made we shall be able to achieve a substantial breakthrough in this hitherto very contentious area.
My hon. Friend also asked what was to happen in relation to submersibles in the open sea. We can legislate only for British vessels or British submersibles. We cannot apply the Bill to foreign submersibles operating from foreign ships, much as we would like that to happen But, as in so many areas which are covered by the Bill, we would hope to see a much more international approach to these matters, I hope that it will apply equally to this area affecting submersibles.

Mr. McNamara: I was trying to keep my remarks short and my hon. Friend might in consequence have misunderstood me. It was not a question of only British submersibles working from British ships. It was a question of other vessels and aircraft buzzing an area while rescue operations were going on, and relationships with foreign Powers with a view to arranging an international convention or agreement on this matter.

Mr. Davis: We can only hope that people will exercise sympathy and compassion in such situations and that they do not interfere in what might become a very dangerous situation. We can only rely on the co-operation of other parties. We can do no more than that. We cannot legislate for this.
The purpose of our introducing higher financial penalties under Section 34(2) of the 1970 Act is simply to cover smoking on board tankers.
I hope that the Bill will run into few difficulties in Committee. It is important that it should be enacted soon because we wish to ratify the conventions which my right hon. Friend mentioned. It was unfortunate in one way that the last election prevented progress in this direction, although it was fortunate in another way because, as most hon. Members have recognised, we have improved upon the Bill, particularly Clause 19. I therefore

have pleasure in commending it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

WAYS AND MEANS

MERCHANT SHIPPING

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further proviison concerning oil pollution by ships and other matters relating to merchant shipping, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the imposition on importers of oil and others of obligations to contribute to an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage,
(b) the impositoin of charges (payable into the Consolidated Fund) in respect of ships entering the United Kingdom where the shipping or trading interests of the United Kingdom are damaged or threatened, or in fulfilment of any international obligation,
(c) the charging of fees in respect of the performance of any of the Secretary of State's functions under the said Act of the present Session,
(d) the payment of any sum into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Dunn.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Orders of the Day — MALADJUSTED CHILDREN (TEACHER TRAINING)

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hatton: The subject that I wish to raise relates to the facilities available for research and advanced training for teachers of maladjusted children. Various surveys have pointed out that about 10 per cent. of children are maladjusted, representing about 1 million children. About 3 per cent. or 300,000 are severely maladjusted. Yet fewer than 10,000 maladjusted children receive special education.
Every school has this problem. It was recently described by Mr. Max Morris, an ex-president of the National Union of Teachers, as one of the biggest problems in schools today. He said:
It exists in such great numbers that many teachers feel overwhelmed by the difficulties.


He went on to say:
The symptoms are often indiscipline, sometimes violence.
In any debate about educational standards, there is mention of indiscipline and indeed violence. The ignorant and the ill-informed attribute this condition to failure by schools and the weakness of teachers. It is sometimes said, unfortunately even in this House, that the reason is comprehensive education or the increase in size of secondary schools. It is because of my sympathy with teachers' problems that I have raised this important subject.
Two categories of those who are handicapped—maladjusted children and delicate children—are regarded as largely recoverable. With proper handling and treatment the maladjusted child should be able to be readjusted and therefore no longer in the handicapped category. If not readjusted, he will tend to become a disturbed adult and may be at best a social misfit or personally unhappy and at worst a psychiatric casualty spending his entire life in an institution.
To teach maladjusted children is not only a task of teaching a child to accept and cope with his disability and to make the best of what nature has provided him with. Teaching maladjusted children is a far more extensive operation involving not only helping the child to learn but also aiding in the child's recovery and the readjustment very often of a mentally disturbed person.
Teachers of maladjusted children have to work with and to assist psychologists, psychiatrists and psychiotherapists and to co-operate with social workers in coping with disturbed homes. The problem occurs in the classroom, and many ordinary teachers are at a loss in knowing what to do because they have not been trained to deal with the problem. In the initial training course very little help is given as to how to identify problems. The courses that exist are totally inadequate and are not growing in number to any extent. There are not the places available for teachers who wish to improve their knowledge of this problem. It would seem that teachers would not be available even if places were provided.
In 1967 an advanced diploma in the education of maladjusted children was started at the University of Manchester. It was the second university course devoted completely to maladjustment, the first being the University of London course. It soon became obvious that there was a demand for a course at an even higher level. In 1972 a course was commenced at the level of Master of Education of Maladjusted Children, This course is at present the only proper master's level course in the world that is devoted only to maladjustment. It is not possible to find another truly master's level course anywhere on special education. This seems to indicate the lack of facilities today to deal with this very important problem which faces so many teachers in our schools.
We are at present further restricted because of the zero rate of development in the education departments of our universities. Therefore, our teachers cannot improve and enlarge their skills and abilities as teachers of maladjusted children. To obtain the maximum benefits of a curative approach it is necessary to be fully aware of what is being done elsewhere. One needs to question, to innovate and to try out—in short, to do research.
As I have said, maladjustment is one of our largest school problems today, yet it is hardly researched at all. If we are to avoid the dilution of the teaching of education of maladjusted children and the running down of maladjusted children and the running down of what I have described as the only two master's level courses in the education of maladjusted children in the world today, it is imperative that the Department of Education and Science considers the lack of resources in this particular matter and treats it with the most serious urgency.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to give an assurance that when the time comes the Government will be able to devote more of the nation's resources to the education service, as I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House wish. There is an important need both to enlarge training facilities for teachers involved with the serious problem I have been speaking about and to devote a greater degree of the nation's resources


to research work. I ask my hon. Friend to give an assurance that the Government's sympathy in relation to this important problem will be along the lines I have suggested.

11.0 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Hatton) for raising this topic this evening. His record in education administration is distinguished. I thought earlier today that if a motion which was before the House was carried I might tomorrow find myself as Minister of State responsible for further "de-schooling" and higher "de-schooling". I am pleased that such an eventuality is not to occur and that my hon. Friend and I can continue to discuss serious educational problems.
What my hon. Friend has said complements neatly the subject of an Adjournment debate three weeks ago in which another of my hon. Friends raised a problem concerning a maladjusted child in his constituency. I am glad to see that hon. Members on the Government side are devoting so much time to these grievous problems.
My hon. Friend raised a specific point relating to the master of education course at Manchester. He also drew attention to master of education courses now running in this country which provide specifically for the training of teachers in order that they can cope with the education of maladjusted children. I gather that the course at Manchester University is an excellent one. I should like to be able to provide assistance to that course, but I am prohibited in a sense by the arrangements which have always been made in respect of university education. It is very much up to Manchester University to determine the allocation of resources within both the budget it receives from the University Grants Committee and the finances it receives from other resources. I recognise the valuable contribution which the Manchester course has been making to the education of teachers of maladjusted children, and I greatly hope that the university will find it possible to make the necessary provision for the course to continue, but it is beyond my remit and my power as a Minister to do anything to aid that course.
The Department makes certain provisions in relation to courses of this or a similar nature, in terms of what I might call pump-priming, but these provisions essentially stem from our power to pay fees, on whatever level, in the early years of a course in order to get it off the ground. Therefore, it is very much up to the university as an autonomous institution to make its own decisions and determine its own priorities.
Before I turn to the facilities available for the in-service training of teachers for the special educational treatment of maladjustment and other handicaps, it might be helpful to make the point, which is often overlooked, that the great majority of handicapped children are, and will continue to be, educated in ordinary schools. The policy has always been—and rightly so—that handicapped children should not be separated from their peers and sent to special schools unless the severity of their handicap made this essential. This means that many teachers will in the ordinary course of their duties be faced with the severe problems—I do not seek to minimise them; I have every sympathy with the teachers who have to deal with them—posed by children suffering from handicaps of various kinds and degrees and they will need a variety of types of appropriate training.
Thus it is desirable that all teachers should, as part of their initial training, learn something of the less serious disabilities likely to be encountered. It is desirable that they should learn to cope not only with the ordinary or the gifted child but with the child who is suffering from a disability which may not necessitate his having to undergo special education—in other words, where the child is better in the ordinary main stream of education but needs special treatment within the school.
Some colleges of education offer optional courses, usually in the third year, for students interested in teaching handicapped children with behavioural difficulties and other courses in the teaching of educationally subnormal children. It is the Department's policy to encourage colleges to provide, as part of initial training, courses in special education where they have the necessary expertise and resources to do so.
There is, however, general agreement that the advanced training of teachers of handicapped children must be undertaken by way of courses of in-service training. I agree with my hon. Friend that further provision must be made. This year there are over 40 one-year courses for teachers of handicapped children leading to a university diploma or certificate. Apart from a small number concerned specifically with the teaching of the blind and the deaf—we can treat those as being in a special category—most of the courses pay attention to the emotional disorders of children, although only five are devoted exclusively to this problem. That may be as well.

Mr. Hatton: I am concerned particularly about the lack of facilities for identifying the problem in the initial training courses.

Mr. Fowler: I share my hon. Friend's concern. The difficulty is that we would be providing a very specialised training were we to teach teachers to identify specific disabilities over a very wide range. That is not a contradiction in terms. My hon. Friend must recognise that, because there are in ordinary schools children with such a very wide range of disabilities, to provide the sort of expertise he asks for would require a course in the identification of disabilities rather than a course in teaching.
I suspect that it is better in a sense if we seek to give a wide range of teachers an ability to identify certain disabilities. We never know where children with specific disabilities will turn up in school. It would be impossible to distribute our teaching force so as to ensure that the right man was in the right place at the right time. Perhaps the best hope is that all our teachers in training may ultimately have some expertise in the identification of disabilities. They should at least be able to call upon the deeper expertise of somebody more specifically trained.
The five one-year full-time diploma courses for experienced teachers which provide specialist advanced study of the education of maladjusted children are at five universities, including the University in Manchester, the city that my hon. Friend represents. They have a total of 72 places. At the moment they are a

little under-subscribed. There are some 64 teachers seconded by their employers at those courses. There is another course starting this year at Keele. These courses are only a small part of the total provision of advanced courses. In all, some 550 teachers are attending a total of 34 one-year full-time diploma or certificate courses in the education of handicapped children. Again, I omit the blind and the deaf. The total of 550 compares with 515 on the same number of courses last year and 471, with two fewer courses, the year before. We are thus making progress.
Teachers attending these courses are generally seconded by their employing authorities on full salary. The number of places currently available is broadly in line with the number of teachers that local education authorities are able to second for such courses. The number of secondments which an authority can approve in a given year is restricted by its own need to maintain adequate staffing standards in its schools. I hope that the authorities will take into account the need to second teachers on courses of this kind. Nevertheless we recognise that authorities have their difficulties.
We are determined to secure a major expansion, as my hon. Friend will know, of in-service training for teachers in schools generally as increases in the teaching force permit us progressively to release larger numbers of teachers to in-service training. Within that general pattern of expansion it may be appropriate to give priority to developments in certain directions. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks in the sense that one of my priorities will be to release teachers for in-service training and education in respect of the education of handicapped children of all kinds, and specifically the education of maladjusted children.
We are very much aware of the need for a greater knowledge and understanding of the causes of maladjustment and of the ways of helping children with behavioural difficulties. Our programme of research is designed to help meet this need. We are spending more on research into maladjustment in children than on research into any other handicapping condition. In the past five years my Department has commissioned research to a total cost of more than £300,000 in the


sphere of maladjustment. Much of that is on-going research. I am not saying that we spent £300,000 in the past five years. Let me not be misunderstood; we have not. However, we have commissioned research of which the total cost is approximately £300,000.
Following the recommendation of the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children, we have commissioned a major research project directed by Dr. Kolvin of the Nuffield Child Psychiatry Unit at Newcastle. The project is designed to find out what can be achieved in ordinary schools by comparing the results of various measures to help maladjusted children with the position that prevails in schools where no special programme has been devised. Those measures include liaison with parents, remedial reading programmes and group therapy carried out by visiting social workers.
I hope my hon. Friend will agree that the hope for progress in the future lies in

this direction. We have to take the children in ordinary schools, educate our teachers to deal with them, discover how they are coping in dealing with the problems of maladjustment and design our research to improve the performance of the teachers and, hence, improve the performance of the children in coping with their maladjustment.
My own hope is that in the future we shall regard maladjustment as a problem which can be readily overcome in our ordinary schools without the need for special education because we have a teaching force which has been educated to identify and to deal with that problem. It should be a problem in the future, I hope, no more serious than the problem which we should now regard as attaching to attacks of measles or German measles, which when I was a child were serious debilitating illnesses.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.